Enemalta’s project to extend the Delimara power station has been the subject of an ongoing controversy that included some very serious allegations on the procedure used by Enemalta to award the contract to Danish company BWSC. In the latest turn of events, last Saturday it was made public that the European Commission is set to propose the closing of its infringement procedure against Malta over the public procurement process related to the highly contentious Delimara power station extension.

The controversy revolved around a contract to augment the local generating capacity at the existing power plant station at Delimara worth an estimated €165m and a further contract concerning the maintenance of the additional power plant valued at €18m.

The words ‘BWSC’ have become ingrained into Maltese society during the past few months with allegations of corruption bandied around despite a thorough investigation by the Auditor General. ‘BWSC’ became the talk of town as people from all walks of life discussed the issue, formed opinions and argued in favour or against the contract.

The crux of the issue, however, is whether these allegations carried weight on an international level. It has to be noted that the European Commissioner, Michael Barnier, initiated public procurement infringement proceedings against Malta by asking the government to explain why it had changed national emission laws and accusing it of having done so for the benefit of the eventual winner of the contract, Danish firm BWSC. Mr Barnier had called into question the changes in emissions rules which allegedly were carried out to the advantage of BWSC. This firm had proposed a potentially higher-pollution emitting diesel-powered engine, running on heavy fuel oil, which the previously stipulated emissions limits did not accommodate.

These are very serious claims which could potentially damage the country’s reputation on an international level and foreign direct investors could become wary of bringing their investment to Malta. Fortunately, the country has been found, at EU level, to have acted within the law, but will enough effort, and propaganda, be made about this exculpation to counteract the negative perception that has been created?

Another factor which could potentially remain contentious is the fact that the Auditor General claimed that he ‘found smoke but no fire’ in his thorough investigations into the whole affair. On the one hand, the fact that he did not find any hard evidence of corruption in relation to the procedure used by Enemalta to award the contract to BWSC confirms, if confirmation was indeed needed, the European Commission’s findings. On the other hand, however, it is obvious to everyone that there cannot be smoke without a fire. This shadow of doubt cannot be eliminated completely and government critics are bound to continue harping on this fact irrespective of the various investigations completed.

The Labour Party was quick to point out that the European Commission had not investigated the irregularities raised by the party and the Auditor General, since such matters fell outside the remit of its investigation. Perhaps the Labour Party is correct in its assertions but the country’s priorities should be kept foremost on the agenda. The investigations have so far failed to locate the ‘fire’, and, in its absence, the country has to focus on the main priorities rather than persisting on proving what has so far proved to be elusive.