The Court has, once again, rubbished all of Robert Abela's claims about the hospitals concession. It's not just Magistrate Gabriella Vella, or Judge Francesco Despasquale. Now it's Magistrate Lara Lanfranco who's concluded that there's sufficient evidence for Armin Ernst to face trial before the criminal court over fraud, bribery, money laundering, misappropriation of funds and trading in influence.
In separate proceedings another Magistrate, Rachel Montebello, had issued a 20 million euro freezing order against Armin Ernst, who was initially Vitals' CEO and then reincarnated as Steward's CEO. That freezing order ensures Ernst's potential proceeds of crime aren't hidden or transferred. It ensures those funds can be confiscated for compensation if Ernst is convicted. Yet Robert Abela keeps insisting there was "no fraud in the hospitals deal".
Why does Robert Abela keep contradicting the findings of the courts? Why is he so desperate to whitewash the fraud and collusion over the hospitals scam? Are all these members of the judiciary mad, traitors, or just political terrorists - as Abela labelled one of their colleagues?
Robert Abela told the press, just last November, after the ruling of the International court of arbitration, that "Steward delivered more in services than what it was paid for". He insisted "the opposition was lying from day one, it sold a false claim to the people...Adrian Delia's claim was discarded". Delia's claim wasn't discarded. Quite the contrary. The Civil Court agreed completely with Delia. Labour's sleazy hospitals concession was "fraudulent", "collusive" and "designed from the start to benefit the private investors rather than the public". It found that "senior government officials" were complicit in that mega-fraud.
Yet in typical Labour doublespeak, Abela stood next to Jonathan Attard at that bizarre press conference as he claimed that "this government worked cautiously and wisely to protect public funds". That government handed over hundreds of millions of taxpayer euros. That doesn't sound like protecting public funds.
Some of those public funds went to dig up dirt on Chris Fearne. More went to the Swiss company Accutor AG which then paid Joseph Muscat tens of thousands of euro.
The courts ruled that Labour failed to "uphold the national interest". Yet Abela bombastically boasted that "with skill, competence, seriousness and knowledge of the subject, we managed to defend the national interest".
"We got fair value for what we paid," Abela bluffed. If the hospitals deal was so brilliant why was it terminated? If Steward were giving us more than what we paid for why didn't Abela keep Steward on? He would have saved the country so much money if we were getting so much more than what we paid for.
Only Abela and his most diehard supporters who've never had to use the public health service believe his utter nonsense. Only those who've not been anywhere near Guardamangia could possibly swallow Abela's twisting of the facts. Only those who haven't set foot at Karin Grech Hospital in the last 10 years believe the hospital concession deal "delivered more in services than what it was paid for".
As for those who still have eyes in their head, the conclusions of that magisterial inquiry are far more plausible - that there was collusion between the private 'investors' and government officials, that there was possible bribery and secret payments, that there was misuse of public funds linked to the concession. Those conclusions were also accepted by the Civil Court which annulled the concession that had been granted to Vitals and then transferred to Steward. Those hospitals finally returned to the nation, no thanks to Robert Abela. He had tasked his own father to negotiate with Steward to reach a more bankable deal, for Steward. If it were up to Abela he would have signed a new agreement with Steward. Indeed the American Ambassador had already been invited for the event for signing Abela's new agreement.
Abela should thank his lucky stars that Adrian Delia took the case to court. Abela should be grateful that the court forced his hand by annulling the concession. If it hadn't, Abela would now be having to explain to the public why he got his own father to negotiate the new deal with Steward - a company that's gone bust and had to sell all its 30 hospitals in the US. A company whose bosses were arrested by US federal investigators and had their electronic equipment seized. A company that is being sued for millions in unpaid bills, taxes and liabilities.
The decisions of the judiciary after seeing the evidence, are that the hospitals concession was filthy, that senior government officials colluded with the concessionaire, that the people involved should be charged with the most serious criminal offences and that tens of millions of euro worth of Isn't it odd that one magistrate after another, having examined "the proof", come to the same conclusion that the whole thing reeks while Robert Abela keeps shrieking that there was nothing wrong with Labour's hospitals concession?
Isn't it strange that the courts conclude that the national interest was betrayed while the Prime Minister insists it was protected? Abela claims Steward gave us more than what we paid for while the courts conclude that Steward "failed to uphold their contractual obligations".
Thankfully it's the courts, not Robert Abela, that determine guilt. Sadly that decision depends on the quality of the evidence presented. The inaction of Malta's police force and its Attorney General has guaranteed that evidence won't be presented in Maltese courts. They're in the possession of US federal agents who detained Ernst and confiscated his phones and documents.
Yet even without that crucial evidence the courts have seen enough to conclude that Abela's defence of Steward holds no water. When will the rest of the nation realise that it wasn't the Opposition that was "lying from day one"? When will Abela realise it's time to stop protecting crooks? Sadly, not anytime soon - he's too enmeshed in that web of crookedness and deceit.