It is comforting to read that it is Alfred Mifsud and not the Labour Party that opposes an out-of-court solution. In truth, my meeting with Dr Muscat was very encouraging and to be honest no less encouraging than our very positive meeting with Prime Minister Gonzi.
In the wake of the media coverage since then, the fact that he has not objected to anything publicly fills me with confidence that also Labour are in favour of this way forward as hinted by Toni Abela when speaking about the matter in reply to the unplanned appearance I made on Xarabank.
From what I gather, Alfred Mifsud has pointed out that an out-of-court settlement by the Nationalist Party on the eve of an election would be a last-ditch effort to favour friends at the expense of the taxpayer.
Even if everyone is entitled to his own opinion, one can again rely on facts to verify whether this allegation is in anyway true or false and whether one should really take this argument seriously.
It is a fact that the Labour Party, namely through the efforts of Dom Mintoff, was at the helm of the takeover of this wholly owned Maltase institution that had until then served the country well, offering trust and assistance to fellow Maltese individuals and business in our ambitious drive towards independence.
Having said this, it is also a fact that while the Nationalist Party had used the case on numerous public appeals, citing it as evidence of foul Labour actions that threatened our human rights, it did not, as expected by those like myself who had so cruelly suffered at the hands of the then government, ever come forward with the hand of friendship in a bid to find a solution.
In truth, it was only the embarrassing evidence made public in the documentary Dear Dom, and the bid by Deutch Bank to sell off its remaining shareholding in BOV that backfired, coupled with a reaction from Toni Abela on Xarabank to the unexpected appearance I made that was agreed to by Francis Zammit Dimech, which sparked a reaction from the government to follow up with a view to reaching an out-of-court settlement.
It therefore beggars belief that Alfred Mifsud would like to cloak an attempt to find a solution with the slant that it is a political move − “one for the road” − before facing the next general election. Have we not had eight general elections since the takeover? If eight previous examples of this untruth are not enough to show the inaccuracy of this false allegation, what is the reason that this time, more than any other time, is the election when our friends should be taking care of us when any such care has been unashamedly denied us on eight previous occasions? Half of which with our supposed buddies at the helm.
To be frank, an honest an out-of-court settlement while being a possible way forward should be, in my opinion, the last resort and not as Mifsud may imply the shareholders’ preferred option. It is only because of a 40-year wait in court and the indifference shown by our political representatives on both sides of the House that this solution is possibly the best alternative for all concerned, namely the taxpayer.
Our rights and freedoms do not emanate from political favour but from the application of the rule of law.
The whole point behind our 40-year wait in court was precisely to make this point. People should not be allowed to run successful businesses under the consenting eyes of our political leaders until they think it’s time up. This case, apart from being a glaring example of government abuse of private property, holds this very basic principle at its core. We are free because the rule of law applies to one and all, not because we have an arsenal of national days, a special flag, and penned a few notes for the national anthem.
The way I see things is that the shareholders either have a claim or they do not. If a court applying the rule of law finds nothing wrong with an Act of Parliament that robs people of centuries of savings and abdicating its legal responsibilities and violating our Constitution in the process, then so be it. We will of course carry on with our fight and, speaking for myself, will leave no stone unturned, but if that’s the Maltese brand of democracy and the rule of law − so be it for all of us. The gauntlet of democracy and justice should be a reflection of the nation and not what I, nor anyone in particular so decrees, even if that anyone happens to be the man in charge under the banner of one political party or the other.
In our case the worst is over. Our business has long since been taken and the people whose lives were ruined by it have passed on, but what does this mean for our future? In truth, it bodes worse for our future then those who have suffered in the past and it is for this reason, among others, that I choose to pursue justice on this issue even though it comes at a cost of personal expense in more ways than merely financial.
Without trying to sound too argumentative, I will now shed some light on the fallacious reasoning that Mifsud so generously provides. In so doing however I will not speak for ARC − I will of course allow him the opportunity of doing so himself if he so wishes.
Six feet tall/offertory collection
Mifsud says that comparing shareholders to taxpayers is like comparing Maltese people to six footers. He says because some Maltese are 6 feet tall no one can say that all Maltese are six footers. My point was that you cannot distinguish between a taxpayer and a shareholder because all shareholders are taxpayers. Mr Mifsud will know more than most that all companies are subject to income tax on earnings and that before any dividends are distributed that tax on operating income generated must be paid before any dividends are distributed. So, unlike his analogy to our height, one can conclude that all shareholders are ab initio taxpayers and as such their rights rank equally with that of the non-shareholding taxpayers whom he chooses to bring into the fight to conveniently strengthen his otherwise weak position. I am not quite sure whether he refers to the collection bowl at the offertory when he says that since they contribute more than a non-shareholding individual their rights should be respected less or vice versa but since the argument is false it makes little difference whether someone pays more or less tax as that should not give him higher or lower ranking in the application of the law. Then again it seems this principle is also debatable so one waits for a clarification if at all possible.
Hearsay
The remark “putting your house in order” was made to my grandfather. I mentioned it myself on Dissett in order to show that the Governor of the Central Bank mentioned this to him on the day he died to shed light on the context in which the takeover took place. While saying that one should not allow hearsay to play a part, he conveniently uses this example of hearsay because he believes it shows weakness in the bank’s operation. Il detto del detto should be ignored unless there is factual evidence, therefore why does he choose to use this example as one of his most overused arguments to show the bank was in trouble. Either il detto del detto does not apply (as prescribed by him when talking about the run) or it does − to use it in this case yet denounce it when discussing how the run started is yet another example of Mr Mifsud’s disposition to pick and chose the rules as he goes along. The truth is that because of his credentials, demeanour and supposed experience in the field, some people pass these arguments off as credible but a closer look reveals the inaccuracy and his proclivity to whitewash the affair with no commitment to the facts.
Professional or otherwise
Another ridiculous allegation made by Mifsud is his insistence on the fact that the National Bank of Malta was a one-man show − unprofessionally run and a bank tal lottu. To start with, the NBM employed 220 people at the time when the Act of Parliament was passed to remove its board of directors and was operating 21 of the 45 branches BOV still operate from today. It was experiencing record results and, as far as we know no major Maltese companies were in default, yet Mifsud insists on his ridiculous assumption because it suits his spin to do so. In my last article I asked him to name one Maltese business that in his view was more professional and to build his case. Again he just whitewashes the issue and insists on pedalling this false allegation without providing one fact or argument to justify it other than saying that compared to the great Barclays it was unprofessional. If one had to compare Valletta FC to Man United, one would conclude that Valletta FC is unprofessional. Comparing Valletta FC to Mqabba FC, one would conclude the opposite, so in my view Mifsud should start to compare like with like and then build a case. Although both operated in Malta, Barclays had offices all over the world while our little institution, although larger then Barclays in Malta, was restricted to our tiny island.
Good return on its investment
The next point is that the NBM shareholders have no claim on the success of the BOV. The reader ought to know that on the day of the takeover, the NBM held Lm8 million in government stock, both locally and in England. This was liquidated by the council of administration at a load of Lm629,000 so although the government provided Lm3 million in government funds and netted more than Lm7.2 million for these securities - the same securities government should have used to act as lender of last resort. Of course we have a claim in BOV especially in the light of these facts, as all the government did was use public money to offer temporary liquidity till it was recovered through dividends with immediate effect − given to the Bank of Valletta once established and not to the NBM that had both a moral and legal claim on the assistance it expected during the crisis.
Role of a shareholder
Mifsud then implies that I do not appreciate the role of a shareholder and that what we expect is for the government to come in and socialise the losses. Again completely wrong. As shareholders we expect the government not to abuse its more powerful position at the expense of our rights and freedoms. Moreover, any losses should have been made without a series of creative accounting that distorted the true and fair view of the business, and not presented as fact once the government had taken over through an Act of Parliament that was ultra vires since it ran counter to both the laws of Malta as well as our Constitution.
Usurp the courts
The shareholders have gone to court and have waited for 40 years. There never has been any intention to usurp the courts; however the courts have a duty to settle the issue fairly. On the understanding that this is more complicated for the courts to do than for Parliament to reach an out-of-court settlement, the shareholders have agreed to negotiate. However, to imply that the shareholders are trying to bypass the courts is untrue and cannot be allowed to prevail. If the shareholders were dying to usurp the courts, they would not have spent 40 years wading through the bureaucracy. Finally, it is yet again clear that Mifsud has no intention to refer to fact and nor is he motivated by finding the truth. Instead, he is only interested in justifying his claim that an out-of-court settlement would be nothing more than a vote catching exercise from the Nationalists to their friends. The truth however is that it is probably in the taxpayers’ interest that rather than a court order a negotiated settlement is reached. If what we claim is upheld by a judge, XLV 1973 should be an illegal act and as a result everything that emanated from it null and void.
This would mean that all the business, assets and liabilities taken from the National Bank of Malta and passed on to the Bank of Valletta would have to be returned to the National Bank of Malta Limited.