Time lines tend to be the best way of taking stock of a situation. Especially when it turns out to be messy, murky and with all the hallmarks of what could prove to be any government’s undoing.
In April 2004 I had quoted a reliable and influential bunkering magazine in Parliament that had reported the imminent departure of the CEO of a state organization to become an independent consultant to one of its direct competitors. The Minister concerned had claimed that there was no resultant conflict of interest.
In the summer of the same year, the Minister terminated the CEO’s job while making it clear in Parliament that this was done as a result of an abolition of post rather than outright dismissal. Reading between the lines one could easily tell that he had once again rejected any concrete claims of conflict of interest.
Surprise, surprise, now that the whole oil scandal that shook the country saw the light of day, none other than the Prime Minister himself declared that the same CEO had his job terminated due to conflict of interest.
All this begs the question: Why did it take the Prime Minister nine whole years to own up?
Would he have spoken the same way had a particular Sunday newspaper not revealed smoking gun evidence of what seem to be kick backs related to oil deals allegedly involving the same person?
If at that time the same PM felt that there was a conflict of interest that could have even led to a degree of foul play why were the Police not involved at all?
Why did he not censure one of his Ministers for having denied that any top managers or directors at MOBC had a conflict of interest?
The rather flimsy excuse given was that while this person’s contract of employment was terminated for the reason stated in the letter the man’s ‘potential’ conflict of interest certainly made the decision easier!
As another Sunday newspaper pointed out only two days ago in a rather questioning mode, why did the person involved receive some €100,000 in severance money despite his contract preventing him from having a conflicting position?
While prudence dictates that I should not even say a word on the news revealed last Sunday that a businessman at the heart of the Enemalta oil procurement scandal had requested a pardon in return for which he was reported to have been ready and willing to give evidence against others believed to be implicated in this case, many found it interesting that his defense lawyer is none other than former maverick Nationalist MP Dr Franco Debono, although he is obviously doing so in a manner strictly linked to his legal profession. Regardless of all this, such a revelation must have still inevitably caused some disquiet in certain pro government circles.
It is a matter of personal satisfaction that not only did I first highlight the potential conflict of interest of the key official involved in this saga, but also that I was the one to trigger the NAO investigation and probe on the manner in which oil procurement was/is being conducted by the ailing corporation Enemalta.
Why did it have the be an Opposition member to hint that there could be something rotten in the state of Malta’s oil procurement, so much so that I even asked for a fully fledged investigation by the NAO in the matter?
When the PL sounded the alarm, Government should have taken remedial action there and then if there were any flaws in the system.
All this begs the question as to whether the disinterest that we have seen in shifting to clean energy as well as in stepping up oil exploration is strictly based on incompetence or more?
When I had asked the NAO to investigate oil procurement, I had recommended amongst other issues, that one should also verify if less oil than Enemalta was paying for was being landed. I am saying so not that I have any proof at this stage that this is happening, but lack of proper verification and audit procedures by Enemalta will stand out more should it prove to be the case. Particularly since the company has languished without any internal audit mechanism for years on end. Further to this I must admit that cargo survey fraud is not a rare occurrence internationally too. Which implies that Enemalta should have been even more vigilant should any of these suspicions turn out to be true.
Government’s unjustifiable love affair with oil and slowness to adapt to alternative energy seems to only make a bad situation worse.
While until recently there were strong suspicions of wrong doing in oil procurement and possible bunkering operations, the documentary evidence that surfaced in the local media some weeks back added far more weight and gravitas to the whole set of accusations.
With Enemalta and Finance presently sharing the same Minister, it is indeed surprising that no action was taken prior to the surfacing of certain stories in the media.
One cannot easily forget that since the Prime Minister is the Minister responsible for the Police the ultimate political responsibility rests on him to ensure that not only is the bull taken by the horns but also that a quick resolution of the whole issue is ensured particularly with the elections being now only days away.
Rather than knee jerk reactions we expect tangible proof of a firm and strong anti corruption approach, even more so when government failed to even mention the whistleblower’s act, the so called proklama (amnesty) and state financing of political parties in its manifesto. Particularly since the proklama had never been mentioned so far. And the PM was so evidently caught in deep discomfort when he had no option other than to go along with Joseph Muscat’s firm proposal to legislate on the matter should the PN be returned to office come the 9 of March.
What needs to be ascertained is not only whether the issue of commissions allegedly paid on oil procurement goes beyond a question of mere criminality but even more if it was justified or not that the perception was created of being linked in any manner to decisions taken by government itself.
[email protected]
www.leobrincat.com