Writing in legal terms to obtain the right of reply, the shore foremen’s legal consultant, Dr Victor Sceri, wrote:

I write for and on behalf of my clients, the Shore Foremen group, who are at the centre of the correspondence and articles carried by your newspaper. I am writing this specifically in reaction to the article Freeport contract dates back to Maconte times carried on page one of your issue dated 29 August.

In this article, Malta Freeport put forward a position for public information that does not in any way tally with the whole series of facts. It is riddled with omissions, inaccuracies and blatant untruths.

First of all, it is worth highlighting the fact that this article in no way replies to or rebuts the allegation that the agreement with Victor Spiteri a/k/a karrettuni constitutes a breach of the Financial Regulations and Procedures for government corporations and companies. This includes the lack of issue of a tender, limiting the process to what is commonly described as a direct order, the value of which can only be guessed at, but in the region of hundreds of thousands of liri.

There is also a blatant discrepancy between the reply submitted by the Freeport to The Malta Independent on Sunday and that sent to the Prime Minister. The Freeport informed the Prime Minister that the agreement was signed in 1991, conveniently omitting the fact that this agreement had lapsed, and a new one was signed three years ago.

My clients have also confirmed to me that during the referred-to Maconte times, they regularly provided their services within the Freeport. This effectively belies the Freeport’s statement that this agreement dates back to Maconte times.

The reference to an agreement between the GWU and the Freeport on their behalf came as a complete surprise to my clients. Not only are they totally unaware of such an agreement, they have never authorised the GWU to enter into any such agreement.

The Freeport has also denied that a fee is charged to receivers of domestic cargo, but confirms payment to karrettuni of a monthly fee. Money not having the habit of growing on trees, this monthly fee needs to have been collected from somewhere, and unless there are hidden charges imposed on transhipment cargo to make up for them, then it must be the Maltese taxpayer who is carrying that burden. A case of the cart being carried! It is also worth noting that the law nowhere makes a distinction between domestic and transhipment cargo as regards ship and shore foremen.