Speaking on Super 1 radio, Dr Sant said that at a time when the people were being burdened with more taxes and when workers were being asked to accept poorer working conditions, the government had a duty to be very careful when deciding on what property to buy for a Maltese embassy in Brussels. The fact that Lm10 million was spent instead of Lm3 million means an extra Lm600,000 to Lm800,000 in interest that has to be paid every year. This will come from people’s taxes or else will add to Malta’s deficit. None of the people who testified before the Public Accounts Committee, including the Prime Minister, had said that the government tried to control spending on the Brussels embassy. Dr Sant said he had expected someone to say that a study had been carried out for the expenses to remain reasonable. It became clear that decisions were being taken by a few individuals who are not taking into consideration the exigencies of the country. He referred to the testimony given by Dr Peter Caruana Galizia who, without any pressure, made it clear that decisions about Dar Malta were all taken by Richard Cachia Caruana. Dr Sant said he knew that before the contract for the purchase of Dar Malta was signed, the Prime Minister did all he could to withdraw from the preliminary agreement, but found that everything had been settled.

The Prime Minister was claiming that the building was commercially advantageous, but Dr Sant said that the ground floor – which was the most commercially advantageous of all floors – had not been bought. At the same time, the government realised that if it leased part of the building, it would have to pay taxes on the purchase, he said.

On the other hand, a Nationalist Party statement signed by general secretary Joe Saliba said that the PAC exercise showed how serious and transparent the government was.

Dr Sant had spent weeks criticising the purchase of Dar Malta, but then did not present the case to the Auditor General, did not exercise his right to be a member of the PAC, did not give his version of the facts in front of the committee and did not even follow proceedings.

This meant that the motivation behind Dr Sant’s campaign was not the national interest but political gain.

Mr Saliba said that Dr Sant could have formed part of the PAC and put all the questions he wanted, but he opted out. He was the first to throw doubts, but he had kept away from asking for information because he knew that the answers would go against what he was saying.

After weeks of criticism, Dr Sant chose not to testify as to what information he had or on what grounds he had based his campaign. Dr Sant did not have all the facts and had based his remarks on doubts and personal attacks, said Mr Saliba. Of the 18 hours of questioning, Dr Sant was present for only 20 minutes. He did not seem to be interested in the facts, Mr Saliba said.