Is accountability a dead letter?

Since then, we got the news that an inquiry had concluded that the energy corporation had acted illegally when in 2009 it burnt hundreds of gallons of a hazardous chemical, mercaptan, in an open field.

Enemalta had, in fact, breached multiple environmental regulations, failed to keep adequate records and purposely withheld information from the environmental regulator and the responsible minister. What is incredible in this episode is not only the way persons who were then senior management Enemalta officials misled MEPA but also the way they managed to 'compensate' financially the workers who took part in the illegal operation. Moreover, the responsible minister was misled by the Corporation and he, in turn, misled MPs in February 2011 when, basing himself on the false information he was given by the Corporation, informed Parliament that Enemalta's stock of mercaptan had been used up by 2007.

There is something inherently wrong in the set-up of a state entity when its notion of responsibility is distorted so much that this sort of blatant abuse can happen with impunity and only be partly unearthed by an inquiry that, sadly, has not really uncovered the whole story. No one should be satisfied with the explanation that the inquiry did not identify any of the individuals directly responsible for the burning of mercaptan as this did not fall within its competency.

Neither should the public be satisfied with the information that the inquiry report had been passed on to the police for further investigation, especially when we are also told that any crimes committed are now apparently time-barred.

What I find perplexing is the declaration made by the responsible Minister Tonio Fenech, to the effect that he cannot instruct an inquiry into this shoddy incident in order to probe the individual responsibility of those involved as according to the 1977 Inquiries Act, only the Prime Minister can order such inquiries!

Surely, the correct procedure is for the ministry to submit a request to the Prime Minister's office so that such an inquiry can be held. Speaking from personal experience, this is what normally happens when a minister confronts a situation in which such an inquiry is indicated. If the Prime Minister is satisfied that a ministerial request for such an inquiry is justified, then he would do well to accede to the request.

So the two pertinent questions are whether the minister recognises the need for an inquiry in terms of the 1977 Inquiries Act in order to establish who the individuals responsible for this tragic farce are and whether he has requested the Prime Minister to consider the setting up such an inquiry. If one were to take a short cut and do away with the niceties and legal formalities another pertinent question would be whether the Prime Minister thinks that this issue merits such another inquiry. After all the 'inquiry buck' seems to stop in his office.

I do not think that the circumstances whereby the responsible persons are no longer employed by Enemalta that cannot therefore initiate disciplinary proceedings against them and that their crime is legally time-barred are reason enough for the government to avoid publicly establishing who were the individual culprits responsible for this incident. These persons need not be formally disciplined and punished: name and shame should be enough in the circumstances pertaining to this case.

People who abuse of their position of responsibility in this way should still be held accountable, at least, in this manner. They might have moved to other jobs but this does not mean that the country should not know who they were. For all we know, they might have new jobs with some other state entity!

Unfortunately, I cannot but conclude that the problem with pinning down accountability for serious blunders is still one of the sorest of points in the administrative set-up of our country. If people are allowed to get away with this kind of thing without being held publicly accountable, this sort of abuse will keep going on repeatedly with the authorities implicitly accepting that Enemalta's folly knows no bounds.

Here is an opportunity for the current administration to show that it really believes in accountability and to practice what it preaches. It will not only be a lesson to those who abused of their responsibility to Enemalta and to the public but will also serve as a warning to anyone who might be toying with the idea of doing something similar. Anything short of establishing the personal responsibility of those who should be accountable in this case surely sends the wrong message.

Otherwise one cannot blame those who resignedly believe that in Malta accountability is just a dead letter.

* * * * * *

Another intriguing aspect of this depressing story is the incredible lack of interest in the case on the part of the so-called environmental NGOs. There was no reaction except that of one environmental journalist - Anne Zammit - who wrote in another Sunday paper a longish article on mercaptan that was technically enlightening and informative but rather weak in its criticism of the illegalities in the way Enemalta disposed of this chemical.

When Enemalta opted for the Delimara Power Station extension that uses Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) - a decision that flew in the face of the administration's much vaunted environmental protection policies - the reaction of these NGOs was also rather muted. Edward Mallia's forceful and concentrated opposition to the decision stuck out as an exception to the rule.

Otherwise, these NGOs have been strangely silent about both the Enemalta mercaptan incident and the power station extension decision. This throws an interesting light on their posturing as genuine environmental activists.

It could well be that these so-called environmental NGOs are not really so: they are just anti-development lobbies. They are more interested in upsetting some developer's applecart - any applecart - than in anything else.

While the negative environmental impacts of some development proposals do outweigh the economic advantages, this is not necessarily always the case, as these NGOs seem to think.

Alas, genuine concern about the protection of the environment has been reduced to opposing any development for the sake of opposing it, while practically ignoring any other serious blemishes in our country's environmental credentials.

The author is a popular commentator and a former PN Cabinet minister