It is pretty much par for the course that the government at large is using, time and time again, the very same tactics of working the system to protect its individual members who stand accused of the same thing – of leveraging the country’s bureaucratic machinery to their own favour.

Politicians facing very serious accusations are permitted to carry on as though it is business as usual.  And they are allowed to do so as the government either bounces investigations from one institution to another, or hides behind investigations instead of taking the kind of bold and concrete action required when elected members, Cabinet members at that, are facing serious allegations of misconduct.

The cases of Ian Borg and Michael Falzon are two glaring examples of this outrageous behaviour.

In the case of Parliamentary Secretary Borg, it seems that an utterly damning report by the Office of the Ombudsman published by this newspaper last Sunday was not enough to force the Prime Minister to, at the very least, suspend him from office. That report found that he had ‘deviously’ listed another person on the development application as the owner of a property he is developing in a sensitive area in Rabat, and that Mepa had deliberately omitted details in its own report to ensure the application could be approved.

Instead, it seems that both the Prime Minister and Dr Borg are hiding behind a still-to-be-concluded parallel report by the Permanent Commission Against Corruption, which is investigating a related but separate complaint against Dr Borg.

Apart from the fact that the Ombudsman’s report stands on its own, that report was made available to the Permanent Commission Against Corruption for its information and guidance on another investigation related to Dr Borg.

It serves to quote from the Ombudsman’s own words vis-à-vis the parallel investigations: “Following discussions between the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission Against Corruption it transpired that the latter lacked the necessary resources to investigate the technical issues relating to building regulations. It was therefore agreed that the Commissioner for Environment and Planning [within the Office of the Ombudsman] could proceed with his own initiative investigation focusing solely on technical aspects of the issues raised, namely the application of policies and procedures during the processing and determination of an application. It was also agreed that once the investigation is concluded, the report of the Commissioner for Environment and Planning would be made available to the Commission Against Corruption for its information and guidance.”

By virtually ignoring the Ombudsman’s findings, and by vaguely claiming there were undefined ‘inaccuracies’ in its report, Dr Borg, the Prime Minister and the government at large are demonstrating a condemnable lack of respect for the Office of the Ombudsman. They are simply hiding behind the Permanent Commission Against Corruption’s other investigation, presumably until they can figure out how to deal with this fresh crisis.

The fact that Dr Borg has declared that he will put a hold on works at his property in Rabat until a second investigation into his comportment is concluded by the Permanent Commission Against Corruption is a small step in the right direction, but it is far from enough. He performed that U-turn, after vowing that work would continue, presumably under pressure after the Prime Minister earlier that same day said that he would suspend work on the property if he were in that situation.

The Prime Minister must take concrete action in Dr Borg’s respect by at the very least suspending him from his duties, which would be less more damaging to the government than letting this situation fester further.

As far as Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon is concerned, this situation has already been festering for far too long. Dr Falzon, in actual fact, should have stepped down months ago when it first emerged that he had, in his capacity as parliamentary secretary responsible for lands, signed off on the now infamous Gaffarena-Old Mint Street deal.

The accusations against Michael Falzon, currently serving as parliamentary secretary, are serious and potentially criminal offences. Dr Falzon is effectively being accused of defrauding the state to the tune of at least hundreds of thousands of euros to the benefit of some shady characters. 

Dr Falzon has not yet been found culpable. A second inquiry, after the initial investigation by the National Audit Office, is now underway by the Internal Audit and Investigations Unit within the Office of the Prime Minister, and it could be some time now until that is concluded.

The Opposition has been calling on the Prime Minister to do the right thing with respect to Dr Borg and Dr Falzon, and we do not back that call simply to see political blood spilt. We back that call in the interest of the political accountability that the Labour Party had promised the nation ahead of the 2013 general election but which, close to three years down the road, we have hardly seen a shred.

Real political responsibility is so rare in this country – where the normal rules of political comportment and the levels of what is acceptable from politicians are unmatched in the Western world – that one is hard pressed to cite a recent example.

One needs to go back to 2010 when then parliamentary secretary Chris Said resigned after he was accused of perjury – a criminal charge – during a court case three years earlier, before he entered national politics. While insisting on his innocence, Dr Said did the right thing and stepped down until his name was cleared.

Dr Falzon and Dr Borg, who are facing more serious accusations, should follow suit.

Instead, the government’s chosen course of action is to await the final results of the investigations into the two parliamentary secretaries before taking any action. But while the government plays games, it fails miserably on its pledge of political accountability.

The government’s failure to act on these two cases demonstrates an ingrained arrogance in the country’s governance, which is a far cry from the tenets of good governance, transparency and accountability that it pledged to introduce if voted into power. 

The government may be technically correct to await the results of every investigation into these two cases but it is morally wrong to do so.

As matters stand, the government’s treatment of these two cases amounts to no more than government-sponsored zero accountability.