Deputy Speaker Censu Galea today ruled that Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi made unacceptable remarks when he implied that the previous government was somehow complicit in concealing hundreds of cases of electricity theft which were unearthed this week.
Yesterday evening, Dr Mizzi had announced the discovery of 655 case files concerning electricity thefts which allegedly took place between 2006 and 2011, and made the same allegations in parliament. But his insinuation that the previous government ignored these thefts irked the opposition, leading Mr Fenech, deputy leader Mario de Marco and George Pullicino to request a ruling from Deputy Speaker Censu Galea.
After suspending the sitting to listen to the recording for over two hours, Mr Galea noted that at one point, Dr Mizzi was referring to political responsibility when he argued that the files were “put in a box” by the previous administration, presumably implying that they had been involved in ensuring that the thefts of electricity were not followed up.
In today’s sitting, Dr Mizzi was defiant, accusing the opposition of seeking to gag him in light of revelations which put their past actions in an unfavourable light. He questioned how Mr Fenech recently declared not to be aware of electricity thefts – including those occurring through rigged smart meters – when he had said, in a budget speech, that smart meters would help put an end to ongoing electricity thefts.
In his reply, Mr Fenech stressed that the opposition was seeking clarifications over Dr Mizzi’s claims that the files “were thrown by the previous administration” as the transcripts indicated, declaring this to be a completely unacceptable charge.
He argued that Dr Mizzi was misleading when he implied that he had known about electricity theft cases, stating that in his budget speech, he was speaking about electricity theft which could be measured on a national level, and not on individual cases.
Mr Fenech also referred to court testimony which showed that the smart meter case was unearthed last July, in contrast with the minister’s assertion that the previous government knew about it, and questioned why the minister only made it public in recent days. He also castigated the government’s arguments that those who benefited from rigged smart meters are “small fry,” using a calculation first made by The Malta Independent that an annual electricity theft of €30 million would amount to an average of €30,000 for every smart meter involved.
The MP also noted that while Dr Mizzi insisted that the cases took place between 2006 and 2011, there were some cases from previous years – when Dr Mizzi worked as a manager at Enemalta. This last assertion led the minister to make a point of order, in which he stressed that he was responsible for IT, and not electricity thefts, only for Mr Fenech to ask him, to no avail, to confirm that he had been in the corporation’s board of management.
Dr Mizzi, instead, noted that unearthing the racket was a long process, but he was proud of the results obtained, before insisting that the former minister should be ashamed of himself.
Mr Fenech stood firm, insisting that he was making a simple question on Dr Mizzi’s involvement in Enemalta’s board of management, and that it was unjust for the minister to tar others whilst concealing his own past involvement in the corporation.
Dr de Marco then attempted to reach a common ground between the two sides, starting by stating that Enemalta and the police’s failure to act on the thefts at the heart of the case was wrong and could not be justified. However, he noted that the opposition wanted to clarify the basis of Dr Mizzi’s criticism of the previous government.
He said that it would be “fair enough” if the minister’s criticism was based on the fact that the thefts occurred when the PN was in government, since the government should have ensured that these things did not occur.
But he added that it was a different matter entirely if Dr Mizzi was claiming that the previous government had given political direction not to pursue these cases. Recalling that Dr Mizzi had served in the management board when a few of the files in question had been drawn up, he asked the minister to state whether he had received any instructions not to look into them.
Mr Galea then suspended proceedings to deliberate on a ruling, and the sitting resumed nearly two hours later.
When he returned, he argued that the opposition cited an incorrect standing order which concerned gross disorderly conduct, but stressed that MPs had to be very careful in their speeches to avoid making any undue insinuations.
Mr Galea said that Dr Mizzi had been given various occasions to clarify his statement, but had failed to follow suit, and thus declared that his speech had been unacceptable. He said that any insinuations that the minister made should be substantiated, and that his ruling should be interpreted as a sufficient final remedy.