Investment Minister Austin Gatt yesterday accused the chairman of parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of trying desperately to save the Opposition Leader “the embarrassment” of appearing to testify before the PAC, where Alfred Sant would be unable to substantiate allegations he had made against Dr Gatt, Gozo Minister Giovanna Debono, Roads Minister Jesmond Mugliett and the chairman of the Water Services Corporation.

Dr Gatt’s accusation was made in a letter which he wrote to the Speaker, Anton Tabone, in the wake of a letter to the Speaker by PAC’s chairman, MLP deputy leader Charles Mangion, in which Dr Mangion sought to be freed from chairing sittings of the PAC which he said represented a conflict of interest for him.

No difficult jargon resorted to by lawyers, no mental somersaults and no bending of parliamentary rules would eliminate one simple fact – the Opposition Leader was afraid to testify, Dr Gatt wrote.

The Investment Ministry had on Tuesday, within hours of Dr Mangion’s letter to the Speaker, accused Dr Mangion of trying to help Dr Sant evade appearing before the PAC. Yesterday Dr Mangion replied to that accusation, saying it was obvious that Dr Gatt’s interest was to make of the PAC a political football to serve the partisan interests of the Nationalist Party.

Continued from page 1

His letter to the Speaker, Dr Mangion wrote, first requested the Speaker to guide the PAC about how to proceed on a motion by Dr Gatt calling for an investigation of the Auditor General’s conduct of an investigation into the Voice of the Mediterranean radio station.

That guidance was sought so that the PAC would not act ultra vires.

A second problem related to a conflict of interest which had arisen for him as chairman of the PAC because Dr Gatt’s motion, approved by the government majority in the PAC, was not only partisan but also completely ignored the PAC’s modus operandi.

The ministry had conveniently not made any reference to the investigation sought by Dr Gatt about the Auditor General, Dr Mangion said yesterday.

As for the second issue, Dr Mangion added, the minister had also ignored the proposal that the Auditor General would investigate matters himself, and the PAC would then deliberate on the independent report of the auditor.

But while he remained chairman of the PAC, Dr Mangion said, he would not allow anyone to use the PAC as a political football and make of it a manhole cover.

If the minister, or the Nationalist government, which had a majority both in the PAC and in parliament, did not like his way of conducting business, a motion of no confidence in him could be proposed.

He was sure, Dr Mangion said, that with the majority the government had, this would easily be approved.

The ministry’s statement of Tuesday was yesterday developed further by Dr Gatt in his letter to the Speaker. Dr Gatt wrote that nothing was very clear about what Dr Mangion wanted but, Dr Gatt wrote, he wanted to remind the Speaker that the whole issue centred on three specific allegations which the Opposition Leader had made.

These were that the contract for the Gozo drainage purification plant was awarded to a Gozitan contractor who was a friend of Ministers Debono and Mugliett; that Michael Falzon, chairman of the WSC, knew that this Gozitan contractor was carrying out inferior work and the chairman was covering up for him; and that Dr Gatt knew what Mr Falzon was supposedly trying to do and he, Dr Gatt, was trying to persuade him to desist.

Dr Gatt wrote that the PAC had decided that the Opposition Leader would be given the opportunity to appear before the PAC to present all the proof he had to substantiate these allegations, apart from having the opportunity to confront witnesses who were also called to the same sitting.

The proof was that public records of the Contracts Department showed that the contract was awarded to a French company in partnership with a Maltese company, and there was no Gozitan contractor involved. As it appeared prima facie that the Opposition Leader’s claim was a pure invention, Dr Gatt wrote, the chairman of the contracts committee was invited to testify so that Dr Sant would be able to question him.

Dr Gatt added that Mr Falzon had already stated publicly that Dr Sant’s claim was a lie, and Mr Falzon had been requested to testify at the sitting so that the Opposition Leader would be able to question him as well.

Dr Gatt wrote that Dr Mangion’s letter was written in intricate legalese and was intended to avoid the real issue and to create a situation where the Opposition Leader would find a pretext and be able to say he would not appear before the PAC because he did not trust it or because the government members of the PAC had not acted properly, or some other such puerile and banal pretext.

But the real reason was one and this was that Dr Sant did not have the courage to appear before the PAC because he did not have the substantiation of what he had stated.

Dr Gatt wrote that naturally the political consequence would be that the public would understand that the accusations Dr Sant made on Sundays were inventions and not the truth, and the Opposition Leader wanted to avoid this at all costs – even the consequence of the PAC being wound up, which seemed to be Dr Mangion’s ultimate intention.

While he had no intention of going into the intricate legal manoeuvres of the opposition to avoid embarrassment for Dr Sant, Dr Gatt wrote, he was for the record again pointing out the obstacles which Dr Mangion had tried to raise.

Dr Mangion had implied, for one, that the practice of unanimity in the PAC about motions had been broken by the government side when the report on the Voice of the Mediterranean was discussed.

Dr Mangion “had a short memory” and he would remind him that it was the opposition members who had, without the knowledge of the government members, proposed a motion in the PAC; he had appealed for them to follow normal practice and motions would be presented only if there was agreement on both sides; he had also warned that if the opposition continued insisting on a vote for its motion, then the government side would itself have to present a motion as well; as the opposition continued insisting on its own motion, he had presented a motion on behalf of the government members; before the vote was taken he had declared that the government side was prepared to withdraw its motion if the opposition did the same, but the opposition continued insisting on a vote.

It was the obstinacy of the opposition, Dr Gatt wrote, which led to breaking the practice in the PAC and to try to restore it he had already declared that at the conclusion of the investigation, the government side bound itself not to present any motion if the opposition did the same.

As for the motion about the Auditor General, if the chairman felt this was ultra vires and could not be implemented, all he needed to do was to rule in that sense, and that would be followed by established procedures if that ruling was contested.

But, Dr Gatt wrote, he could not understand why the chairman took three months to bring up this pretext, and conveniently came up with it when he needed to solve a problem for the Opposition Leader.

Dr Gatt wrote he wanted to draw the Speaker’s attention to the practice that investigations would first be conducted by the Auditor General, since there was nothing in the regulations which made this procedure binding; the seriousness of the case made its hearing urgent but the opposition, to make sure it was prolonged, had proposed that the investigation would delve not only into the allegations made but also into financial issues which had nothing to do with the allegations.

The pretext of a conflict of interest was banal. MPs’ conflict of interest was regulated by the Constitution and it was clear there was no conflict in this case.

The chairman was saying that the conflict arose from the fact that the PAC decision reflected the opinion of only one side of the PAC. He did not need to reply to the banality of this pretext in the context of parliament’s daily sittings.

Dr Gatt wrote that the chairman had not only sought to free himself from carrying out his duties, which he could not do because if he wanted to he should resign, but at the same time he subjected the continuation of his duties to the condition imposed from the opposition, which was that the leader of the opposition would not testify to the PAC.

Obviously, Dr Gatt wrote, the opposition not only had no respect for the majority, but was trying to dictate matters from the opposition.