I am left with no choice but to reply to Noel Grima’s ridiculous and unfounded assumptions, masquerading as a news report, which you chose to publish on the front page of your newspaper (TMID 13 October), together with the gratuitous inclusion of my wife, Daphne, as though she were some qualification or impediment to my inclusion in the negotiating team – or, may I add, as though she worked for the competition, rather than for you.

Please be informed that Fr Grima’s published assumptions are not even remotely supported by the few quoted excerpts, which he took out of context in a manner that we have now come to associate with the media owned by the Opposition Party. I can only interpret this odd behaviour as being possibly motivated by ulterior motives directed at undermining my role and my credibility in what has, thanks to this kind of reportage, become a cause celebre.

I feel deeply concerned at reading such twisted coverage and convoluted interpretation in The Malta Independent.

I have read the reports in all the other daily newspapers, as well the transcripts from the recording of my statements, and cannot help wondering what Fr Grima found to be of such groundbreaking news value that he chose to run that insulting story.

I declared throughout my testimony before the Public Accounts Committee that I had absolutely no contact with Richard Cachia Caruana during the process, and that he had absolutely no influence on my input to the report drawn up by the negotiating team, which report was presented to the government on 9 February 2004. At that stage, he had not yet been appointed Permanent Representative in Brussels.

I made it clear to the Public Accounts Committee that, from what I could understand, Mr Cachia Caruana’s sole concern – after he had been appointed Permanent Representative, by which time the negotiating team report was in hand already – was that the premises chosen for and by the government would be suitable for Malta’s Permanent Representation office.

I repeat that he never interfered in the negotiations, and certainly not in the decision to purchase, which is the point of the furore caused by the Labour Party. That decision was taken jointly and unanimously by the Cabinet, as has already been pointed out. It should be obvious to any sensible person who is not motivated by political malice or inspired by conspiracy theories that one man does not go shopping abroad on behalf of the government of Malta for property valued at several millions – at least, not under this government.

I believe this has been amply corroborated. Fr Grima chose to insult me by remarking that I have been the opposition’s greatest asset in this matter. It is a remark worthy of a libel suit, but purely out of respect for my wife, I will not sue the newspaper that she works for. I would say that it is Fr Grima who has in fact played this part, even if unwittingly. If Fr Grima wishes to unearth a scandal, I suggest he looks elsewhere.

Peter Caruana Galizia LL.D.

Valletta

This is an exact transcript of what was said during the hearing on Tuesday:

Tonio Fenech: Mela ha nkun iktar dirett. Is-Sur Richard Cachia Caruana thoss li b’xi mod influwenza l-opinjoni tieghek fix-xoghol kollu li inti ghamilt f’dan il-perijodu?

Dr Caruana Galizia: Le, le, lanqas xejn. Jien nahseb li Richard Cachia Caruana bazikament l-izjed say li kellu hu fuq l-ghazla tal-post flimkien ma’ Albert Mizzi whatever. Minghalija hu kien mar idur ma’ l-agenti u affarijiet hekk. Kien speci ta’ delegat mill-kabinett biex isib post minn dak li stajt nifhem u ovvjament jekk kien se jahdem fih hu kellu nteress.

Dr Charles Mangion: Jigifieri fl-ghazla tal-post lilek ma kellmekx ovvjament, inti qed tghid legal advice u se mai ma tistax tinfluwenza fuq legal advice.

Dr Caruana Galizia: U lanqas nahseb li se jiehu l-parir tieghi, jigifieri jaf jaghzel wahdu. Pero’ fl-opinjoni tieghi ghazel sew.

Dr Charles Mangion: Pero’ fl-opinjoni tieghek kien imdahhal fl-ghazla tal-post ukoll.

Dr Caruana Galizia: Kien involut zgur.

Translation

Tonio Fenech: Let me then be more direct. Do you think that Richard Cachia Caruana in any way influenced your opinion in any work you did during this time?

Dr Caruana Galizia: No, no, not at all. I think that basically Mr Cachia Caruana’s greater say was on the choice of the property, together with Albert Mizzi, whatever. As far as I know he went round together with agents and so on.

He was in a way delegated by Cabinet to find a property, as far as I could understand, and obviously since he was going to work in it he had an interest.

Dr Charles Mangion: In other words he did not speak to you about the choice of the property, obviously. You are speaking of legal advice and if anything you cannot put influence on legal advice.

Dr Caruana Galizia: Nor do I think he would take my advice. He can choose for himself. In my opinion, however, he chose well.

Dr Charles Mangion: But in your opinion he was involved in the choice of the property as well.

Dr Caruana Galizia: He was certainly involved.