The Mercaptan saga was not just an ordinary chemical dumping issue. It seems to have all the makings of a cover-up of the highest order. The only mystery that remains unsolved because of a highly inconclusive inquiry report is who could have been covering up for whom.

It all happened at the time when Minister Gatt was the minister responsible.

And yet – in spite of the fact that the minister is reportedly well known as having a firm grasp of whatever goes on in his ministry and departments – we were told that the minister was never informed.

The serving minister responsible for Enemalta merely tried to shrug things off by claiming that he was not the minister at the time.

At the same time, when recently misleading the House in reply to a parliamentary question of mine he claimed that he had been misled by the corporation since he had been fed wrong and incorrect information by them.

The lame excuse that the people involved have since then moved on to fresh pastures hardly solves anything.

Reading through the wobbly inquiry report one gets the wrong impression that only middle to lower rankers within Enemalta could have been responsible for this wrong doing, but then when Minister Fenech and I discussed the subject during a breakfast show – TVAM – he admitted that the Enemalta management were in the loop, all along.

While certain pro-government gate keeping newspapers have not even found the time to dedicate one single editorial to this shameful saga, a particular newspaper deserves to be commended for having carried more than one editorial on the subject. It argued that the air still stinks in the wake of this chemical dumping saga and went on to add that the fuss that the PL has made over the illegal dumping by Enemalta, a state corporation, of the hazardous chemical Mercaptan “is not without justification”.

I am in total agreement with the editorial’s most worrying conclusion that the inquiry has not helped to clear the air completely of the foul smell of the Mercaptan.

Arguably, it might have been meant to go down this particular route, since both my colleague Joe Mizzi and I and the journalist of another local newspaper – who were all summoned as witnesses by the nameless board of inquiry members, all seemed to have reached one main conclusion.

This is that one of the primary objectives of the inquiry board members – who did not even have the decency to identify themselves during the proceedings or else be identified by Minister Fenech in reply to a PQ of mine – could have been to try and ferret out who could have possibly tipped us off about this wrong doing.

Coming in the wake of S+P’s January 2011 damning downgrade report on Enemalta wherein it was claimed that the corporation lacked transparency and good governance, the mind boggles at the mere thought that by the time the inquiry report had been completed and filed and Enemalta themselves were asked to add their own comments, the corporation still did not have an internal audit system or process in place.

This is something which is a sine qua non even among far smaller enterprises in both the corporate and public sector.

I still have to come across a cheesier conclusion to a so-called independent inquiry report.

While gently rapping Enemalta on their knuckles, the report had the cheek to argue that all is well that ends well, and even though the wider longer-term serious implications and social responsibilities should have been an overriding concern, Enemalta corporation may have had very valid internal short-term reasons for the way it decided and acted regarding the disposal of Mercaptan!

It was equally baffling to come across a covering letter by the current Executive Chairman of the Enemalta Board of Directors, who although not involved at any stage in the running of the corporation at the time that this scandalous behaviour took place, he had the gall or the cheek to remark that although it is true that one could never justify this lack of proper conduct, in mitigation it has to be stated that all that was done was carried out under extreme pressure and definitely very much in good faith!

How on earth did this experienced gentleman dare reach such a gratuitous conclusion?

The same applies to the executive summary of the inquiry report itself.

If the report concluded that there had evidently been serious shortcomings in decisions and actions taken by Enemalta at different stages of the Mercaptan events, how on earth and why did they choose to add the following sentence: However, these should not be seen in isolation of the context and circumstances in which they took place. While not considered as justification, it is appreciated that there were several factors that may provide a fairer understanding and appreciation of the situations and dilemmas faced by the Enemalta management regarding this case.

The board of inquiry even seemed to make its own Enemalta’s fallacious conclusion that in the perceived emergency situation that Enemalta found itself in, to have to dispose of the Mercaptan in the summer of 2009, Enemalta contended that the burning of the Mercaptan was carried out under as controlled conditions as there could possibly be in the circumstances.

Mystery thickens when one realises that every rule in the book was broken throughout the process.

Particularly as far as Mepa’s involvement is concerned, and the fact all the standing waste management regulations as applicable particularly since Mercaptan has long been classified as a waste item, as well as regarding Occupational Health and Safety standard regulations.

The sins of commission and omission seem to be endless.

Why was the private contractor contracted for the disposal activity by burning not even mentioned by name in the report, although he and his consultant seem to have been interviewed by the board of inquiry?

If Mepa had then warned Enemalta that their handling of such waste substance without the necessary permits constituted a legal violation and had informed them that it was considering pursuing the matter in court, why was the matter not pursued further by Mepa at the time? The lame excuse that Mepa might consider doing so now is pathetic to say the least.

The covert payments made in different tranches to corporation employees and firemen involved in the execution of the job creates room for further speculation.

What I also find totally unacceptable is that the board of inquiry submitted a list of specific documents that it had requested Enemalta to pass on to it.

It seems that none of them were provided.

These included:

• possible photos and or film footage example by cctv cameras regarding storage, dosing, transporting and even disposal of the waste;

• stores and or transfer records as well as Gas Division gate pass records;

• air sample tests results for gas leakages during and after disposal by burning;

• any extracts from minutes of the EMC board of directors meetings in the interim period.

If you need further proof of the aura of a cover up surrounding this sad and shameful saga I will quote Page 30 para. one of the said report:

“The decisions and actions by Enemalta management were evidently taken with good intentions and perceived by them at the time to have been for the greater benefit of the general public apart from of Enemalta itself, even if it may be argued that some turned out to be wrong.”

This is simply adding insult to injury. No wonder that the powers that be seem to have preferred to rely on such crass incompetence and political impotence rather than on a truly independent magisterial inquiry while also roping in the police from the very outset.

[email protected]

www.leobrincat.com

Leo Brincat is the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Sustainable Development & Climate Change