Malta’s MPs needn’t worry about getting punished for their misbehavior. They have at their disposal the perfect handbook to evade justice. No matter how atrocious their actions, they remain unaccountable. All they need do is refer to that handbook - the Code of Ethics for MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. It clearly lays out how to do as you please without consequences.
Nobody knows that handbook more thoroughly than Joseph Muscat. Indeed one of his very first acts on taking office was to order a review of that ethics code. Soon enough he was boasting that his new code of ethics would be “slimmer and carry less detail than the current code”. He showed his real intentions when he abusively claimed it was his prerogative to give his ministers a “limited waiver” on the code of ethics. Ministers had always been expected to stop their private practice. Muscat allowed parliamentary secretary Franco Mercieca to continue to work privately on Sundays.
That “limited waiver” soon turned into open season for all ministers including himself. Even his slimmer code of ethics couldn’t survive the savage trampling by Labour’s cabinet. That code of ethics was designed to allow Ministers and MPs to do as they please. And it was their leader who led the way.
When Muscat’s bad behaviour was referred once more for investigation by the Standards Commissioner he retaliated against the man who reported him. Muscat’s signature vindictiveness targeted Arnold Cassola. Muscat accused Cassola of “seeking to continuously use the resources of your office (the Standards Commissioner’s) for personal political promotion”.
Muscat’s reply to George Hyzler’s investigation was not a denial of any wrongdoing. It was “I am a private citizen”. And therefore the Act on Standards in Public life “does not apply to me”. Muscat used the ruling given by Speaker Anglu Farrugia in session 413 of 11th January 2021 to shield himself from investigation by the Commissioner. According to Muscat, even his “slimmer” code of ethics did not apply to him as he was no longer an MP.
Muscat went further. He claimed that even simply answering Hyzler’s letter could be judged to be contravening the very convenient ruling by the speaker. “It would be proper if first and foremost you could specify how in your opinion a person who falls under the Public Standards Act remains accountable even after relinquishing his role”, Muscat arrogantly replied.
Hyzler clarified that the Speaker’s ruling only meant that retired MPs could not be sanctioned but could still be investigated. Muscat was compelled to reply.
For the man who had practically dictated that abridged code of ethics, defending himself was easy. “Since your investigation is based on paragraphs b and d of article 5(2) of the code of ethics, I did not breach them” was Muscat’s legalistic rebuttal. The code specifies that MPs are only precluded from accepting gifts, benefits or hospitality from third parties who have an interest in legislation being discussed in parliament at the time. At all other times they are free to accept any gifts - monetary or otherwise. So Muscat triumphantly pointed out to Hyzler that the third parties who paid for his lavish stay at Collalto Sabino Castle “did not have any direct or indirect interest in legislation being discussed in Parliament”. “Besides,” he insisted, “I never participated in any parliamentary debate about legislation after my resignation as PM”.
So Hyzler had no option but to conclude that Muscat had not breached his own “slimmer” ethics code. Muscat was not even obliged to register his free vacation. That amazing code made sure that it was almost impossible to breach. That code must be the most unethical of ethics codes ever designed. Bizarre to an extreme but remarkable in its slipperiness. Maltese MPs can only breach the code if they accept money or gifts from third parties, who have an interest in legislation before parliament, while that legislation is being discussed. So what that code helpfully advises is that MPs should ensure that any monetary or other gift should reach them before the debate on that legislation starts. Or if that’s not possible, wait until the legislation is voted through and then accept that gift. The message to MPs is clear. You can accept any gift, but don’t accept it while the law is being debated.
And of course if that monetary gift or lavish hospitality is in return for other parliamentary work then that’s absolutely fine. It’s only gifts related to legislation you need to be careful about. If you’re voting to hand over huge tracts of public land to private owners, you’re not breaching Muscat’s code. Neither if you get paid for asking parliamentary questions for your donor. That’s fine too.
There’s another hint in that handy code. If you really must get involved in something dirty, make sure you cover it up for at least one year. Then Hyzler can’t touch you. That’s what happened when Ian Borg was reported for giving a direct order of 62,400 euro to his close advisor’s daughter to serve as junior lawyer, two months before she even graduated and months before obtaining her warrant. Ian Borg gave her another 46,142 euro direct contract for six months’ work, the following year. But when word leaked out about Borg’s shamelessness, the year had passed. So Hyzler had to beat a retreat. Not because there was any doubt about Borg’s unethical actions - but because those loopholes were put there by design.
And if, you are unlucky enough to somehow manage to breach that code, you always have one final get-out-of-jail free card - resign your seat. Thanks to that visionary speaker Angelo Farrugia, once you resign, nobody can touch you. No matter how atrociously outrageous and despicable your crime.
Like most other checks and balances on this magical island, that ethics code is just a ruse. Rather than promote ethical public standards it simply provides a roadmap for MPs to cheat safely.