Konrad Mizzi went on Dissett to defend his position about his company in Panama and a Trust in New Zealand. Watching his performance, I have to confess that his replies were far from convincing and watching presenter Reno Bugeja's expression said it all. He too was not happy with Minister Mizzi’s replies.
Reno Bugeja asked a number of basic questions, which Mizzi thought that he could answer easily without thinking of the consequences. When asked whether he would be closing down his company in Panama, Mizzi replied in the affirmative, but at the same time stated that he would be opening the same company elsewhere. This prompted the presenter to repeatedly ask Mizzi whether he would be closing the company down. At this point, Mizzi did not confirm the assertion that he would be reopening the company but simply stated that he would be closing it down after the audit. Then, Bugeja asked him about the value of his company in Panama to which Mizzi replied that it only costs 92 euros, and has no assets in it.
Why the hell, would anyone owning a company whose value is 92 euros want to reopen it elsewhere? Why the hell, does somebody who owns a company worth 92 euros has first to wait for an audit before closing it down? Any company worth 92 euros does not need auditing. 92 euros are given in tips to waiters by diners who are of Mizzi's status! This behaviour can only be explained by the fact that the company must be worth much more than is being declared publicly and explains why Minister Mizzi wants to reopen a 92 euros company somewhere else.
Yet, the proof that he is lying came from the debate that Mizzi had with the deputy Leader of the Nationalist Party, Beppe Fenech Adami, again on TVM. In this debate, Mizzi gave a different version of facts. He stated that there is 92 worth of shares in this company. Therefore, if now he is talking about shares, this company can be holding shares of other individuals. Are these shares going to be audited if there is ever a real audit? It is clear that Mizziis keeping his options open andwaiting for the audit to close down the company,gives him all the time in the world to move his capital to safer havens. Unfortunately for him, he was caught stating a number of contradictory facts, which makes his position of minister untenable.
This analysis can be assessed through three events which though unrelated are all linked to Panamagate. The first is Minister Mizzi's reply to the accusations made by the Leader of the Opposition and his challenge to Busuttil to repeat his accusations outside Parliament so that Mizzi can sue him for libel. This is all nonsense. Any member of Parliament, against whom another member makes an unfounded statement, can ask the Speaker for redress. Even when such a statement comes from a member of the public, the member of parliament still has the right to ask the Speaker for redress. This is known as a Breach of Parliamentary Privilege. It is only members of the public who are mentioned unjustly by members of parliament in parliament who do not have the possibility for redress. Therefore, Mizzi could have resorted to a breach of privilege against Simon Busuttil but he failed to do it. This means that what Simon Busuttil said in Parliament about Mizzi and his money is true.
It is worth recalling that the current Prime Minister Joseph Muscat used this privilege against Simon Busuttil when he felt that the Leader of Opposition stated untrue facts about him. Mizzi has not done so.
The second is the billboard of the Lady in Panama. In itself, such a billboard is an auto-de-fe and a clear admission by government that Panama is a corrupt country. With that billboard, the PL is clearly and loudly stating that Panama is corrupt where finance management is concerned. Ann Fenech is defending herself from accusations of corruption but Mizzi has so far failed to give any plausible justification for his inane actions.
A third blunder has escaped the media. The accusation against Ann Fenech revolved on the premise that Fenlex, of which she is one of the managing partners, has opened a company on behalf of third parties in Panama in 2003. Fenech defended herself by saying that when this company was opened in Panama, in 2003, Panama was not a black listed country. Yet, what is most interesting here is how the media perception changes and timescales assume different values to suit the agenda of the party at Castile.
When Michael Falzon accused the National Audit Office (NAO) of collusion with the architect, who made the estimates in the Gaffarena case, the pro-government media defended the architect and NAO by stating that NAO had last used the services of architect Spiteri in 2009. For the pro-government media, this is far way back in time to be taken seriously as proof that there was a collusion between NAO and the architect in question. Obviously Minister Mizzi is held in higher esteem than Falzon was in Castile, as the argument has completely shifted in the pro-government media for whom an event that took place in 2003 assumes even greater political relevance and importance than one in 2009!
Faced with these conundrums the Prime Minister felt the need to also go on Dissett to try to rectify the situation. Did he rectify it? I don’t think so. Even, the Prime Minister’s replies proved inadequate and the story that his Chief of Staff has even paid kickbacks to the (former) managing director of The Times can only worsen his political situation. What is sure is that more stories of corruption will be unearthed by the media in the coming weeks and months, involving persons very close to the Prime Minister, which will continue to damage the trust that Muscat enjoyed with the public. The Prime Minister is extremely positive that the unnamed international firm commissioned to audit Minister Mizzi’s assets will clean the Minister from all accusations of corruptions. With such a load of corruption stories, any favourable report will not cancel this general perception of corruption but can only intensify it.