The Standards Commissioner is unable to investigate a complaint against Minister Ian Borg over the driving licences scandal, saying, among other things, that the complaint is time-barred.

The commissioner's decision was made public on Friday by independent MP Arnold Cassola, who had written to the Standards Commissioner in October 2023, asking him to investigate Minister Ian Borg following the driving test racket scandal.

Cassola had said that the minister “endangered the lives of thousands of drivers and pedestrians by recommending and ordering his subordinate Clint Mansueto to enable candidates taking the driving test to pass when they were unable to do so without the minister’s help”.

In August 2022, the Director of Licensing at Transport Malta (Mansueto) and two other officials, were charged in court and pleaded not guilty to charges relating to corruption and bribery in relation to driving tests.

The Commissioner took note of the timeline of events.

“On 1 October 2023, the Sunday Times of Malta revealed chats where Minister Ian Borg and other individuals allegedly passed on names of applicants for driving licences to the Director of Licensing so that they would be given helped in the test,” the commissioner noted.

He noted that the news report referred to messages that occurred between 2018 and 2021, and that the dates published that referred to messages sent directly from Minister Borg to the TM Director were May and November 2019, and June and October 2020. “At that time, Transport Malta fell under Minister Borg, who was responsible for transport.”

The Commissioner said that it seems the messages revealed by the newspaper predate the court proceedings against the three Transport Malta officials.

The commissioner said that his office had to consider whether he is able to investigate this complaint in light of two clauses in the Standards of Public Life Act.

The first clause the Commissioner quoted reads: “The Commissioner shall not proceed to investigate any allegation on a matter about which proceedings are pending before a court or before a tribunal established by law, and shall suspend an investigation if any interested person files a demand before a court or tribunal as aforesaid about the matter under investigation, or if the Court  of  Magistrates  holds an  inquest  about  such  matter,  or if the Commissioner of Police shall have commenced an investigation about the same matter.”

The Commissioner said that one can debate whether this provision is triggered due to the procedures in court, given that they are not against the person whom the complain was made against. But he noted that there is “a close tie between the complaint and the court proceedings, so much so that for this office to investigate the complaint it would likely have to ask for evidence which is in the court’s hands, call as witnesses people accused in court to ask them about the facts from which the charges were issued, and reach a conclusion regarding these facts despite that they have not yet been established by the court.”

The Commissioner said that it would be prudent for the office to avoid the risk of prejudicing court proceedings, even if the aforementioned article doesn’t apply.

The Commissioner, in his decision, also quoted another clause from the Act, article 14(2), which reads: “A complaint under this Act shall not be entertained unless it is made not later than thirty working days from the day on which the complainant had knowledge of the fact giving rise to the complaint or than one  year from when the fact giving rise to the complaint happened, whichever date is the earliest.”

On this point, the Commissioner said: “as such, this office is precluded from considering the complaint,” saying that article 14(2) establishes what needs to be done precisely and does not leave room for interpretation.

The Commissioner did refer to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) where, the Commissioner said, the “OECD recommended, among other things, that the time limits imposed through this Article should be extended.”

However, for these reasons, the Office said that the complaint cannot be investigated.

In a statement, Arnold Cassola said that the Commissioner is refraining from investigating the case, “1. because he would not want to prejudice the court procedures and 2. Because the chats happened over one year ago and are therefore to be considered prescribed.”

Arnold Cassola stated: "The Standards Commissioner is doing his duty by following the letter of the law. However, the way the Standards Commissioner Law has been engineered in parliament with the unanimous agreement and vote of PL and PN MPs shows that the MPs were more interested in covering up for themselves, through the introduction of a one year prescription period, rather than ensuring that justice is really done. This is a veritable and concrete example of how Justice is not seen to be done".