The Standards Commissioner's report on the perks given to Joseph Muscat when he resigned as prime minister reflected the low standards in public life in Malta, but action could still be taken about them, the rule of law group Repubblika insisted on Thursday.
The commissioner's investigation found that the former prime minister received three substantial benefits that his predecessors were not entitled to.
"The commissioner confirmed that the ministers in Joseph Muscat's Cabinet gave him a gift paid for by taxpayers which was at least twice that given to previous prime ministers, even though he stepped down after the biggest political scandal in history," Repubblika said.
Describing the episode as theft of public funds, the NGO raised questions over the three reasons given by the commissioner for being unable to take further action.
The commissioner had argued that he could not take further action because Robert Abela was not prime minister when the Cabinet took its decision to gift Muscat.
And yet, Republika pointed out, when Robert Abela became prime minister, he forced the minister of tourism to withhold a gift which former minister Konrad Mizzi gave himself when he resigned a week before Muscat.
"Robert Abela could and should have done the same in Muscat's case," Repubblika said, adding that Abela's Cabinet was responsible for not changing the 'corrupt decision' by the Muscat Cabinet.
The commissioner had also argued that he could not take further action because the law precluded him from acting on matters which took place more than two years previous to the complaint. This, Repubblika said, was an empty excuse since Muscat was continuing to enjoy the benefits of that Cabinet decision.
The commissioner had also argued that the law precluded him from interfering in Cabinet decisions.
Repubblika said the powers of the Cabinet were still subject to the law and ministers were still obliged to behave in an ethical manner. The fact that the standards commissioner found that the ministers had handed Muscat a gift without basis at law showed that they had abused of power and abused of Cabinet confidentiality.
One could understand that Cabinet documents were confidential, giving ministers the freedom to express themselves before a collective decision was taken. But this confidentiality did not give them the right to hide theft and unethical behaviour, as was this case. It was only because of this secrecy that more than two years elapsed before the complaint was raised. Abela had even initially denied that such a benefits package existed.
If the law really did not allow anyone to do anything, despite knowing about theft that was hidden behind lies, then the law needed to be changed so that everyone could be held to account, including the Cabinet, Repubblika said.