The Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the Fisheries sector Alicia Bugeja Said received significant financial backing from three well-known companies in the fishing industry, according to financial declarations filed with the Electoral Commission.

For a candidate to receive financial backing from a company isn’t, in itself, wrong, as long as it is declared.

The issue here is the position she was given in Cabinet, being made responsible for the fisheries sector. Documents filed with the Electoral Commission show that Bugeja Said received a €2,500 donation from fish distributor Frutti di Mare, another €2,500 from fish farm operator Malta Fish Farming, and a further €1,200 from well-known fish importers Azzopardi Fisheries. Those three donations make up 54% of all the money which Bugeja Said told the Electoral Commission she had received during her campaign.

This is a clear conflict of interest, even though a spokesperson for the Parliamentary Secretary denied this.
A spokesperson for Bugeja Said, when contacted by this newsroom, said: “Electoral law contemplates and expressly authorises the giving of donations, in line with the law, to electoral candidates and dictates that these donations are declared in specific forms which are then published, so that any conflict of interest is avoided and so transparency is safeguarded.”

“The Parliamentary Secretary will be carrying out her work with the greatest seriousness and honesty and should be judged according to what she achieves in her post,” the spokesperson added. The spokesperson went on to say that the fact that she received donations which were declared in line with the law as a candidate, as happens in electoral systems abroad, will not stop her from doing her work in the most correct manner.

But how can the public not question the decisions she will take, given that the companies which contributed to her campaign are in the sector she is now responsible for? The answer is that whatever decisions she will take as Parliamentary Secretary for fisheries will always be shrouded in some sort of shadow, as there will always be questions on the reasons that led to such decisions.

We all know that the sector has been at the centre of controversy in the past, with issues such as the sea slime incidents, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that tough decisions would need to be taken.

There is a conflict of interest, plain and simple.

The Prime Minister should not have made her responsible for this sector. One could also question whether she asked for this role or not, as it is as yet unknown. Had she been given a different set of responsibilities, these issues would not be present.

You simply should not have a candidate who had such a large percentage of funding coming from one sector, be put in charge of that same sector. If we are trying to rebuild trust in politicians, this is not the way to do it.