Instructions given by former PM Joseph Muscat for Konrad Mizzi to be given a consultancy job with the tourism authority constituted an abuse of power and a breach of the ministerial code of ethics, Standards Commissioner George Hyzler has found.
His report, which can be read here, was debated, behind closed doors, by Parliament’s Standards Committee on Wednesday.
Konrad Mizzi had been given a job as a consultant with the Malta Tourism Authority less than two weeks after he resigned from his post as tourism minister, being paid €80,000 annually in addition to having a number of perks.
Mizzi had resigned from his ministerial role on 26 November 2019. Following the news of the consultancy breaking, there was quite an uproar, and the Tourism Minister said on 28 January that it had terminated Konrad Mizzi’s MTA consultancy contract. This happened after the change in government when Muscat was no longer Prime Minister.
Also in January, Alternattiva Demokratika Chairperson Carmel Cacopardo had requested the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life to investigate the appointment of Konrad Mizzi as a consultant. After it became known that the report concluded, he had asked the Speaker of the House to publish the report.
In the report, Hyzler found that Muscat’s instructions exceeded his legal power as minister responsible for the MTA. He found that there was a prima facie breach of several articles of the ministerial code of ethics, including an article that states that ministers should exercise the highest levels of diligence when utilising public funds, and the law on standards in public life.
Muscat justified his actions buy referring to the Public Administration Act, which empowers ministers to give instructions to entities falling under their remit. The Commissioner found, however, that this Act does not apply to the MTA, which is regulated by a different law that gives more restricted powers to ministers.
The Commissioner also commented on the roles of MTA’s CEO and Chairman. When the CEO received Muscat’s instruction, he should have referred it to the Chairman and asked for direction.
By failing to inform the Chairman, the CEO became an accomplice in going above the board he should have been loyal to. If the Chairman was informed but did nothing about it, then he would have done nothing to uphold the position of the board. Neither of them seem to have acted in order to safeguard the law, he said.