The Permanent Commission Against Corruption has found no evidence of corruption or bribery in the way Enemalta had granted BWSC the €200 million contract for the extension of the Delimara power station.

In its report sent to Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis in February, the commission confirmed the conclusion reached by the National Audit Office that there had been no evidence or corruption in the way the contract had been awarded by the Nationalist administration.

The investigation had begun in 2010 following a story that appeared in General Workers’ Union daily l-Orizzont claiming corruption. The probe had then stopped because of changes to the composition of the corruption commission.

When the commission was reconstituted, the investigation continued. In the meantime, the Public Accounts Committee had asked the National Audit Office to investigate “whether tender procurement procedures had been regular and relative regulations adhered to”.

The commission said that while the NAO investigated the matter according to the terms of reference given by the PAC, the commission had to look at the claims from a legal perspective and see whether there was proof, beyond reasonable doubt, of corruption in the way the tender was awarded.

The auditor had concluded that he had not come across any hard and conclusive evidence of corruption in the tender procedures for the selection of plant for the Delimara power station extension.

However, he had complained of a lack of cooperation from certain stakeholders who contended that they could not recall certain events or information.

The auditor had found various cases of administrative shortcomings, especially on the part of Enemalta Corporation and the Department of Contracts, mostly due to either to lack of experience in the procurement process adopted during this tender and/or insufficient coordination between the two entities, both considered as key stakeholders in the procurement process.

In its evaluation, the Permanent Commission Against Corruption too said it had found no evidence that any money had been exchanged as was being alleged or that this involved any public officer or a politician.

There’s a big difference between alleging wrongdoings in the way the contract was awarded to claiming that there was corruption, the commission noted.

It heard how the allegations of corruption revolved around an e-mail in which someone at Enemalta said that the matter needed to go further up the political hierarchy. The commission concluded that the person who sent the e-mail could have been bluffing as there was no evidence that backed this up.