You’re not fooling anybody

Former Speaker Anġlu Farrugia just won’t go away. After Labour rewarded him for his silence with an unprecedented three terms as parliamentary speaker, he’s still moaning that he’s not been given another term.

He was “shocked” and “disappointed” that he wasn’t reappointed, he told Times of Malta. “I was expecting to continue,” he lamented, claiming he still had more to give. “I believe I could have stayed on – the president of the Italian Senate, Ingazio La Russa, for example, is almost 80,” the 70-year-old Farrugia protested, implying he wanted to remain Speaker for another 10 years.

His unbelievable sense of entitlement isn’t the worst that pitiful interview reveals. What’s far more disturbing is Farrugia’s deplorable attempt to rewrite history and whitewash his shameless shielding of consecutive Labour governments and multiple Labour MPs found to have breached ethics. He was challenged over his favouritism of the Labour government by the interviewer: “I almost smile when I hear it,” Farrugia commented. Nobody else is smiling.

Farrugia repeatedly and vigorously intervened to save Labour from scrutiny over the most shocking scandals. In April 2018, Farrugia intervened to block a parliamentary question directed at then prime minister Joseph Muscat over whether his chief-of-staff, Keith Schembri had attended the wedding of Pilatus chairman Ali Sadr Hasheminejad. The speaker ruled the question was not in the public interest.

Just months later, Farrugia rejected two PQs about the publication of the full Egrant inquiry report claiming that such questions were not relevant.

When Yorgen Fenech and Schembri were arrested in connection with the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, Farrugia rejected an urgent debate on the political implications. As the whole country and the rest of Europe discussed the arrest of the prime minister’s chief of staff over the journalist’s assassination, Farrugia made sure that parliament carried on as if nothing had happened.

When the court ordered a formal investigation into former police commissioner Lawrence Cutajar for allegedly passing on information to Melvin Theuma, the middleman in the Caruana Galizia assassination, Farrugia ensured there was no urgent debate in parliament on the matter. The speaker insisted there was no urgency.

Farrugia saved Muscat from facing sanctions when he decided that the former prime minister could not be summoned by the standards committee after Muscat was found by the commissioner for standards in public life to have abused his power when he appointed the disgraced Konrad MIzzi to an €80,000 MTA consultancy.

In March 2021, Farrugia ruled that the standards commissioner should not have investigated the 2019 lock-up of journalists in Castille after the commissioner found Muscat to have again breached ethics. Farrugia took Labour’s side and voted with Labour to declare that the commissioner should never have investigated Muscat. The commissioner rightly pointed out that the speaker “was led to issue a ruling he had no power to issue” and that the speaker was trying to restrain him.

It was Farrugia who spared Carmelo Abela from sanctions when he was said to have breached ethics. Farrugia spinelessly decided to abstain from casting his vote claiming that, despite the commissioner’s clear ruling, he did not feel that Abela had breached guidelines. Farrugia saved Abela the €7,000 of public funds he abusively channelled into self-promotion and that he should have been forced to pay back. Ironically, that same Abela has now replaced Farrugia as speaker.

When Rosianne Cutajar was found to have breached ethics, Farrugia voted against adopting the commissioner’s report claiming that witnesses should be called before the committee first. But when opposition members tried to summon witnesses, Farrugia prevented them.

Farrugia was there to shield then justice minister Edward Zammit Lewis when his cringeworthy messages with Fenech were revealed. Farrugia rejected a request for parliament to discuss a no-confidence vote in the justice minister over his chats with Fenech.

The speaker falsely claimed that what was reported had been in the public domain for months and, therefore, there was no urgency. In fact, those messages had only just been revealed.

There’s nothing to smile about any of those rulings. That’s a long record of shame.

Yet, Farrugia insisted “all my rulings were well researched…I have no qualms. In fact, none of my rulings were ever appealed.” That’s another blatant lie. Several rulings were appealed or even formally challenged.

When Farrugia ruled that Schembri could not be the subject of a no-confidence motion, the PN presented a motion challenging the ruling. When Farrugia blocked questions about Schembri’s offshore accounts in Dubai and at Pilatus Bank, Simon Busuttil presented a parliamentary appeal. Nationalist MPs moved a motion calling for a review into Farrugia’s bizarre ruling that the standards commissioner should not have investigated the Castille lockup of journalists. There were many others. But Farrugia seems to have forgotten all of them.

He’s also forgotten how he cynically reported Busuttil’s driver to the police over what he claimed was misuse of fuel allowance to the tune of €70.

A magisterial inquiry completely exonerated the opposition leader’s driver – but only after Farrugia’s false allegations led to the driver’s suspension and humiliation. When no evidence of any abuse was found, reporters asked Farrugia whether his actions were politically motivated. He replied, “of course not” before attacking the opposition leader stating that “it is Dr Busuttil who should apologise to his driver”.

Farrugia hasn’t changed. Decades after he arrested an 18-year-old Caruana Galizia and kept her in a lockup for two days, where she was subsequently forced to sign a pre-written confession simply for attending an anti-government protest, Farrugia showed no remorse. “I was simply doing my job… it wasn’t only Daphne we arrested,” he blathered.

Farrugia claimed he was extremely sorry to hear of the journalist’s assassination. He even had the cheek to state that he “supported the public inquiry into her murder, so much so that I was the first person to testify”.

In fact, Farrugia kept his silence at the inquiry. The inquiry board pleaded with him to give them names and hard facts. He refused. The board even offered him the possibility of testifying behind closed doors. Farrugia replied “there’s no need, I have no names to give”.

That’s not a legacy to celebrate. It’s an infamy to denounce.