How different it would have been for Edward Scicluna had he ended his term as finance minister in 2021 and gone quietly into retirement.
Instead, he faced fierce controversy over his appointment as governor of the Central Bank, based on things he had said and done – and, more importantly, things he had failed to either say or do – during his tenure in Cabinet.
He continued in that role, hiding behind the fact that the appointment of governors of central banks had been designed to protect the incumbents from being removed, enabling them to fulfil their role in serenity and independence.
The European Central Bank has had a few instances when this principle blew up in its face, ending up before the European Court of Justice.
The law, under whose umbrella the ECB sits, says that “a governor may be relieved from office only if he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if he has been guilty of serious misconduct”.
Whether a Maltese court – which found there was enough evidence for Scicluna to continue his case in connection with the hospitals’ scandal – would qualify to invoke this clause is best left to the experts.
However, there was no doubt when it came to the Malta Financial Services Authority, where he was not only on the board, but was also its deputy chairman. Scicluna has now been stripped of that role through a notice in the Government Gazette, which is quite a humiliation.
The prime minister’s decision – for whatever reason it was made – did not happen in a vacuum.
Scicluna would do well to follow Fearne’s example to avoid further humiliation
Robert Abela also said in an interview on Thursday that “he hoped that Scicluna would take the best decision” before the Cabinet meets on Tuesday.
This has come hot on the heels of calls by the Nationalist opposition for Scicluna to step down and to discuss this stubborn attitude in parliament.
And yet, until yesterday evening, Scicluna remained adamant that he will stay on – at least until he falls foul of the ECB statute.
There are two issues here: Scicluna and whatever reputation he still thinks he enjoys; and the national interest.
The first is easier to explain given his belief in his own prowess, and his weighing up of the situation.
His determination to brazen it out in the hope that it will just go away must have been sorely shaken, not only by the magistrate’s decision for the Vitals case to proceed but also his removal from the MFSA board, and the prime minister’s not very veiled comment that Scicluna must go.
More importantly: what is in the interest of the country? Malta is still in the process of repairing its reputation following the FATF greylisting. It remains in the limelight of international media for all the wrong reasons, thanks to the Vitals/Steward case. Which makes it crucial for the authorities to show that it understands why integrity matters, why people should shoulder responsibility for any failings – whether their own or under their portfolio.
There is no mechanism for Scicluna to be removed from his post as governor except his conscience and his ability to put the country’s interest before his own.
Chris Fearne set an example by stepping down immediately because he understood the office he represented was bigger than himself or his ego. And he did so while maintaining his innocence.
Scicluna would do well to follow Fearne’s example to avoid further humiliation.