MP asks if BOV resignations were linked to Daewoo case

Labour MP Carmelo Abela asked in parliament yesterday whether certain resignations from Bank of Valletta, particularly of a senior official, were linked to the Daewoo case.

He was speaking during the debate on a bill which introduces the right in the Civil Code for victims of corruption to sue for damages.

Earlier in the debate Nationalist MP Michael Frendo said the bill reflected government seriousness and would also be viewed positively by people interested in investing in Malta.

Opposition MPs said legislation had to be matched by enforcement. They complained that many cases of alleged corruption had not been seriously investigated and no one was ever held accountable.

At the beginning of the debate Dr Frendo said the bill reflected seriousness. Not only had the laws been updated so that criminal proceedings could be taken against those who committed corruption, but the victims of corruption could seek compensation.

Laws such as this also made good reading for people interested in investing in Malta or submitting tenders for contracts here. It was well known that corruption was an obstacle to investment.

Dr Frendo said one also needed to discuss how the courts viewed corruption and defamation cases.

It was true that people in public life should be ready for a greater degree of criticism than private citizens and a greater degree of proof was therefore needed before they were found to have suffered defamation. But once it was proved that people in public life had suffered defamation, the compensation they should be awarded should also be far higher than that for private citizens, because the damages they would have suffered would be greater.

Mr Noel Farrugia (MLP) said legislation was not enough and the authorities should have the "commitment and the guts" to enforce the laws against corruption. The authorities also needed to ensure they did not create the conditions which encouraged corruption. MPs heard many allegations of corruption, such as the case over how land at the new hospital site changed hands just before the area was designated for development.

The people, he said, were right to suspect corruption when they saw contractors carry out works without permits, and get away with it.

The people also perceived corruption when local councils resurfaced certain roads and not others and when public funds were squandered and when, for example, millions of liri were lost in the sale of Mid-Med Bank.

The people had to be shown respect. They could not trust the administration when they were given false information, even on matters such as the impact of EU membership on several aspects of life, such as food prices.

Mr Carmelo Abela (MLP) spoke on the need for increased co-operation between countries to combat money laundering stemming from acts of corruption.

He observed that the bill did not establish any guidelines to be considered by the courts when they awarded compensation for acts of corruption. This could, perhaps, be considered.

Mr Abela welcomed the provisions of the bill to protect people who revealed corruption, saying such protection should be comprehensive so as to effectively deter corruption.

Speaking on corruption cases, Mr Abela said he was of the view that people in decision making posts, such as the Planning Authority, should be periodically replaced. This particularly applied to sensitive posts where money changed hands, as the Archbishop had said with regard to building permits. Indeed, he felt that the remarks made by the Archbishop, and many others before him, had not been taken seriously enough by the authority and the government.

Cases which had raised many questions included those of drug trafficker Queiroz, the development of Fort Chambray and the Solemar Hotel, the Sceberras Grioli case at the Housing Authority and bank lending in the Daewoo case. Were resignations from Bank of Valletta, particularly of a senior official, a result of the Daewoo case? Why were the government and regulatory institutions keeping silent in such a case, which had caused damages to the bank and several people?

Such cases needed to be investigated seriously, not superficially.

The media, Mr Abela said, had a duty to reveal corruption wherever it happened.

He insisted that recommendations by the Ombudsman and the Tribunal for the Investigation of Injustices should be acted upon promptly by the government if the people were to have any confidence in such institutions.

Mr Joe Mizzi (MLP) said he would like to see statistics of how many cases of corruption were found by the Commission for the Investigation of Corruption. Why were corruption cases not being detected even though everybody said that corruption existed? What was wrong? Was it legal procedures? Were people covering up for each other? Clearly the laws against corruption did not seem to be working. He had moved cases before the commission of manifest corruption as also defined by this bill, yet somehow the commission found that they did not constitute corruption, but injustice.

He had complained that some people in Telemalta were passed over for promotion because of corruption, with the promotions having been given to people who did not possess the required qualifications and did not have enough seniority.

Such cases, Mr Mizzi said, had taken place when Mr Tony Debono was Telemalta`s general manager. The Injustices Tribunal had, in one week, upheld as many as 15 such cases, which stemmed from corruption, yet no action was ever taken against Mr Debono. Indeed, he had been given a higher post at Maltacom. And such irregularities in promotions were continuing to this day in Maltacom. Any whiff of corruption needed to be investigated immediately. Corruption could be deterred with proper investigation, not cover-ups.

There was also "filth" in the Planning Authority. He had mentioned several cases there, and instead of investigating, the government accused him of having a hidden agenda to undermine the institution. Did the same apply to the Archbishop, Nationalist MP Tony Abela and former MP Carm Lino Spiteri, who had also complained about the authority?

Mr Mizzi said the government had defended the authority even when it did not act as it could in the Solemar Hotel case. Why was an investigation not held? Clearly there was filth.

He had also mentioned a case of pressure having been brought to bear on an authority official, a lawyer, by Parliamentary Secretary Jesmond Mugliette after the official insisted on action being taken against an illegal development, which happened to involve a neighbour. Instead of being defended by the authority, this official had been the target of a frame-up. He ended up being investigated, found guilty of misconduct and had his responsibilities removed from him. This was filth which would be investigated by the commission against corruption.

Mr Mizzi said an application for tuna penning development had been considered by the authority even though the chairman himself knew it was illegal and should not therefore be considered further. It was no wonder that the Archbishop had spoken on money changing hands.

The people involved in environment impact assessments for such projects were always the same and problems were raised only when other people were involved. There had been a case where two assessments made by the same person were contradictory. Could anybody explain why?

No independent investigations were ever carried out into such matters.

The Kalkara development was another example which deserved investigation. How could development be allowed when the area was outside development areas according to the Structure Plan?

It was not enough for the members of the board of the authority to say they were not corrupt. It was their duty to investigate and stamp out corruption lower down the ranks of the authority.

Mr Mizzi said MPs enjoyed privilege in the House so that they could reveal corruption even when they did not hold evidence of the kind required in a court of law. In such cases, rather than challenging such MPs to repeat their comments outside the House, the government should investigate.

His agenda, Mr Mizzi said, was for the Planning Authority to be transparent and for everyone to be accountable.

Dr Joseph Sammut (MLP) said corruption eroded the people`s confidence in national institutions and reduced the efficiency of such institutions.

He felt that the House should consider giving broader powers to the Ombudsman so that he could not only make recommendations, but also provide remedies.

He felt the definition of corruption in the bill should include cases where public officers did not do what was expected of them, or when they acted beyond their duties, in a way which gave an advantage to others.