The chairman of parliament’s public accounts committee yesterday requested to be freed from chairing the committee during sittings, which he said created a conflict of interest for him, and the Investment Ministry quickly accused him of trying to help Labour leader Alfred Sant.

The spat followed a letter by Charles Mangion, PAC chairman and deputy leader of the Labour Party, to the Speaker of the House Anton Tabone, in which Dr Mangion said he felt he should refrain from presiding PAC sittings which would discuss a motion approved by the government’s majority on the PAC, because the prevailing circumstances created a conflict of interest for him.

Dr Mangion also asked for the Speaker’s advice about how the PAC could proceed on another PAC-approved motion calling for an investigation into how the Auditor General conducted his inquiry into the Voice of the Mediterranean radio station.

The Investment Ministry was quick to reply to Dr Mangion’s letter, concluding that Dr Mangion had brought up pretexts and legalistic points to help Dr Sant evade the PAC’s decision that the MLP leader should appear before the PAC to substantiate allegations he had made.

Dr Mangion said the PAC had since its inception worked hand in hand with the Auditor General, an office that was a Constitutional institution which answered to parliament and was trusted by both sides of the House of Representatives.

This had created a certain way of how the PAC conducted its business, in the sense that every issue which was brought to the PAC was referred to the Auditor General, to conduct an investigation. The PAC would then discuss the Auditor General’s report, which had always served as a guide both for him as well as for the PAC’s members.

This was because in his work, the Auditor General was always exhaustive and impartial and the report, in his opinion, helped the PAC to deliberate an issue more professionally.

But recently, Dr Mangion wrote, two motions approved by simple majority of the government on the PAC had created problems for the PAC chair.

The first motion was proposed by the government side and approved by four votes for and three against, contemplating the holding of an inquiry into the workings of the Auditor General and his office, in the manner that the inquiry into the Voice of the Mediterranean was conducted.

The second motion proposed by the government members and approved in the same manner as the other motion, contemplated a discussion by the PAC on allegations which had been referred to by Minister Austin Gatt in his letter to the PAC chair. The letter related to allegations made by the Opposition Leader in connection with the Water Services Corporation.

At the same time, another motion proposed by Helena Dalli was not approved. She had proposed that both the allegations mentioned by Dr Gatt as well as those referred to by the PAC chair in a letter to the PAC’s members, should all be investigated by the Auditor General, to be followed by deliberations by the PAC on the report which would be drawn up by the Auditor General.

Dr Mangion said that with regard to the first motion calling for an inquiry into the workings of the Auditor General in the Voice of the Mediterranean case, the chair still felt it could not proceed. The PAC, Dr Mangion wrote, did not have the competence to check the Auditor General, an institution protected by the Constitution, and subject to no other person’s authority or control.

In this regard, he added, he was asking the Speaker to advise on how the chair and the PAC could proceed without being ultra vires.

As for the second motion, he as chairman of the PAC was feeling that in the circumstances that had developed, he had a conflict of interest which prevented him from chairing the PAC fairly and independently as he was obliged to do, and as he had always done as chairman.

In this case, Dr Mangion wrote, his position as deputy leader of the Labour Party and his duty to preside impartially, were in conflict, primarily because the decision taken reflected only the view of one side of the PAC and contrasted sharply with the practice of unanimity of action followed until recently by the PAC.

Apart from this, on one rather important issue, the PAC chair did not have any independent and exhaustive report from the Auditor General on which to proceed and guide the PAC impartially.

In the light of these circumstances, Dr Mangion wrote, he felt he should rule himself out from chairing the sitting or sittings relating to the deliberation on the motion approved by the PAC by a simple government majority.

But, Dr Mangion added, if it was accepted to appoint the Auditor General to conduct an investigation or deliberation into the requests made by Dr Gatt, and the request the PAC chair had made to the PAC members, he would be prepared to chair the PAC, no matter what the Auditor General’s report said.

He was suggesting this, he wrote, because he firmly believed that every effort should be made for the PAC to resume the practice of agreement in its workings, so that the PAC’s stature would be strengthened. In this way the PAC, in spite of its structure, would constitute a serious parliamentary body which, together with the Auditor General, would be a serious watchdog on the government of the day, no matter who was in government.

The Investment Ministry, commenting within a short time of the publication of Dr Mangion’s letter, said Dr Mangion was clearly aiming to help Dr Sant get round the PAC decision that Dr Sant should appear before the PAC to substantiate allegations he had made.

Dr Sant, the ministry said, had made three serious allegations about Dr Gatt and the chairman of the Water Services Corporation.

Dr Sant had alleged that a work contract for a Gozo drainage plant was awarded to a Gozitan contractor in spite of a cheaper offer; that the WSC chairman was covering up for inferior work made by this contractor; and that Dr Gatt was aware of this inferior work and had wanted the chairman to take action about it.

The ministry said the PAC had decided that Dr Sant should testify about the allegations he had made and substantiate them as soon as possible. That decision was taken on 4 September and the PAC had agreed also that the hearing of Dr Sant’s testimony would start after 17 September.

Because the PAC had not been called to hear the Labour leader’s testimony, Dr Gatt on Monday wrote to Dr Mangion calling on him to convene the PAC. But instead of that, Dr Mangion has now written to the Speaker, bringing many pretexts which in some way or another would allow Dr Sant to avoid testifying.

The ministry said this confirmed that the Labour Party and its leader had no interest in the truth but wanted to sling mud at others with baseless claims, and then went into hiding when asked to substantiate their claims.

It was shameful that the deputy leader of the Labour Party was serving as an aid to the Labour leader. This meant only one thing, the ministry said, and that was that Dr Sant had invented his allegations in another typical example of mudslinging.