The Commissioner of Standards in Public Life has concluded an investigation on Yorgen Fenech’s Petrus wine gift to former prime minister Joseph Muscat.

Fenech was one of Joseph Muscat’s guests of honour at a party held at the prime minister’s official Girgenti residence in February last year, where he gifted him fine wine worth thousands of euros.

On previous occasions, Fenech, the man accused of masterminding the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, had given the former prime minister two expensive watches worth thousands.

The investigation had been requested by independent candidate Arnold Cassola.

Cassola noted in his request that Fenech had gifted Muscat wine which cost around €5,800.

The commissioner wrote to Cassola on Wednesday saying he had concluded the investigation and sent his recommendations to the relevant parliamentary committee for consideration.

In his letter to Cassola, the commissioner said it was the committee that should decide when to release the report.

Cassola said in a statement on Thursday that it appeared that he, as complainant, did not have a right to know the contents of the report and its recommendations and that it was the parliamentary committee on Standards in Public Life that decided when and if to release the contents of the report.

He said he wrote to the committee asking them for the immediate release of the report for public consumption, in the interest of transparency and openness.

“All honest Maltese citizens and residents do not deserve anything less,” he said.

The law regulating standards in public life 

The Commissioner of Standards in Public Life asked the Parliamentary Committee for Standards to deal with the report in terms of two specific articles of the law on Standards in Public Life. 

Article 27 is about the powers of this committee and what it can and cannot do while Article 28 deals with sanctions the committee may impose. 

The committee has the power to scrutinise the commissioner’s work for the purpose of ensuring that the commissioner is fulfilling his duties and operating efficiently, and shall examine any reports it receives from the commissioner.

It is up to the committee to decide whether to adopt the conclusions and any recommendations contained in the said reports. Where the committee deems that it cannot adopt a report of the commissioner, it may either decide to reject the said report or decide that the allegation needs to be investigated further, in which case it may, with the assistance of the commissioner, conduct such additional investigations and hear further evidence on the matter of the allegation.  

The committee may also request the commissioner to explain any aspect of the report or to carry out further investigations. If the committee decides to reject the commissioner’s conclusions, it must give reasons for its decision.

On the other hand, Article 28 deals with sanctions that the committee may impose. 

According to this article, if the committee finds that there has been a breach of the Code of Ethics or of any statutory or ethical duty, it may, after granting the person concerned the right to make submissions, admonish the person investigated. 

It may also recommend that the matter be reported to the police commissioner or the Permanent Commission Against Corruption for further investigation.

If the person is a government employee, it may direct any entity to take all necessary measures with a view to remedy the breach.

If the person is a  member of the House of Representatives, the committee must recommend that the House should direct the member to rectify any breach; demand an apology in writing to the committee; demand an apology by way of a personal statement in parliament; demand the repayment of or payment for resources improperly used; recommend that the House takes any other measure it may deem fit, or recommend that the House directs the person to rectify the breach.