One of the things I have noticed in the fall-out from John Dalli’s forced resignation is that lots of people can’t distinguish between a crime and a sacking offence or resignation matter. They also seem to believe that Malta’s Attorney-General will, once he receives the OLAF report, begin his own investigations. So we have had quite a lot of ‘John Dalli is innocent until proven guilty’.

This misses the point that he has been proved guilty already, which is why the President of the European Commission demanded his resignation immediately he received OLAF’s report, and basically gave Dalli an hour to clear his desk and get out. So of what is he guilty, exactly? Well, that should be obvious, shouldn’t it? But it’s the point that many are missing: he is guilty of compromising his position and the reputation of the European Commission.

Another point being missed is that Dalli was asked to resign at the close of investigations and not at their start. The investigations are over. Conclusions have been reached. The report does not land on the Maltese Attorney-General’s desk for that whole process to begin again. It lands on his desk for criminal action to be taken (or not), since this is a step that the European Commission delegates, so to speak, to the member state itself.

Dalli may not have actually taken a bribe, but OLAF found unequivocal and incontrovertible evidence that he knew his henchman was asking for bribes and using Dalli’s name while doing so. OLAF also found that Dalli did nothing to stop or report this, despite knowing about it. The implication is, again, obvious: if he didn’t try to stop it, it’s because he didn’t want to stop it, because he was involved.

The seriousness of the situation becomes only more evident as other information emerges, generally in the Swedish press because that is Swedish Match’s home turf. In the same way that we in Malta have tended to focus on Dalli’s henchman Silvio Zammit, so the Swedish press has focussed on the Swedish tobacco company, Swedish Match. It should be taken as read that OLAF has far, far more in its report than was told to the press at the briefing in Brussels last Wednesday, but that it cannot reveal this information because its reports are kept confidential and dispatched only to the attorney-general of the relevant member state. That does not mean that involved parties are prevented from speaking, and certainly Swedish Match has spoken to a leading newspaper in its own country, in very specific terms. Its spokesman, Patrik Hildingsson, said:

“The Maltese businessman expressed to us very clearly that he was speaking on behalf of Dalli. He had a manner and information that made us wary. He said it was, in principle, political suicide to lift the ban and therefore he wanted money for it, simply put, since the career (of the EU commissioner) would be over afterwards.”

Can it have been more incriminating than that? Of course, there will be those who say that perhaps Silvio Zammit, a known henchman/associate of Dalli’s, might well have gone about abusing his connections in this fashion, while Dalli remained in blithe ignorance. Yet OLAF is clear about the fact that he was not ignorant of the fact that these requests were being made in his name. When Giovanni Kessler, OLAF chief, said that the investigations found conclusively that Dalli was aware of what was going on even if there is nothing to indicate that he participated directly, we did not know exactly what it was that Dalli was aware of.

Now, thanks to this report in Sweden’s leading newspaper, we know. Dalli was aware that Silvio Zammit had asked for €60 million in his name, saying that changing the tobacco directive was “political suicide” and so that huge amount of money was necessary to compensate for Dalli’s career as European Commissioner being effectively shot to death. Now we have a clearer picture on why Dalli was ‘let go’ immediately the report landed on Jose Manuel Barroso’s desk. Imagine being aware that your associate is making a request like that in your name, and doing nothing about it. It follows that you approve, that you are in league, or – and this is the only possible alternative – that you have taken complete leave of your senses (which some might say applies anyway).

But even if Dalli did not know what was being said in his name, it would still be a resignation matter. This is one of the several points that people miss. By allying himself so closely to somebody like Silvio Zammit, who then went and made a hash of things and embarrassed the EU Commission, John Dalli himself was guilty of bringing the European Commission and his role into grave disrepute. When you are so senior, and represent something like the European Commission, you have to watch out who your friends, colleagues and associates are. As that very apt Maltese saying goes: “Ma min rajtek, xebbahtek” (I group you with those I see you with).

www.daphnecaruanagalizia.com