Robert Abela refused to apologise for having breached ethicsover a Facebook advert whenthe commissioner for standards in public life offered to close the case if the prime minister did so.

Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi, therefore, referred his decision to MPs in parliament’s Standards in Public Life Committee earlier this month.

On Monday, the four government and opposition MPs on the committee - Jonathan Attard, Andy Ellul, Mark Anthony Sammut and Ryan Callus - unanimously agreed to publish the report.

Azzopardi found that a short, sponsored video uploaded to the MaltaGov Facebook page last year constituted a misuse of public funds to promote the prime minister and his image, rather than to broadcast information of public interest.

The investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by independent candidate Arnold Cassola last year, who claimed that a video was “taxpayer-funded propaganda” for the prime minister.

Ethics regulations allow politicians to use public funds to share information of public interest, but not to promote themselves or boost their image. 

But since the total cost of the video was just €700, of which only €100 was used to boost its reach on social media, Azzopardi concluded it was a minor breach and felt a written apology from the prime minister would be enough to consider the case closed.

However, when he wrote to Abela in December, informing him of the breach and asking for an apology, the prime minister would not apologise, arguing his rights to a fair hearing were being breached because he was not given the chance to produce evidence.

When the standards commissioner found Finance Minister Clyde Caruana guilty of a minor ethics breach last year, Caruana had agreed to apologise for it and refund the €99 used to design and promote the post on Facebook.

The 37-second video

The 37-second video - still available online - is titled "Prime Minister Robert Abela visits a number of projects in Gozo". It shows Abela meeting and greeting people and children in village squares, shops, offices, schools, workplaces and construction sites, complete with background music.

In his report, the commissioner said the video “continuously focuses on the prime minister as he meets people and gives no detail about the project”, except for on-screen words that appear on screen that indicate the location of the visit.

The video was uploaded to the MaltaGov Facebook page, which is owned by the Office of the Prime Minister, and was sponsored for greater circulation, contsituting an advert, the Commissioner said.

Laws on standards in public life dictate ministers should always maintain a clear distinction between their roles as a minister, as an MP and as a member of a political party, and be impartial when it comes to matters of public service, while administering public funds with the highest level of diligence.

As per procedure, the commissioner wrote to the prime minister informing him of the complaint, asking him to respond to the claims and justify the video’s public interest.

'Frivolous'

In his reply, Abela argued the complaint was “frivolous”. The video showed him in his capacity as prime minister visiting publicly funded government projects of national importance, he said.

“The visit was intended to give an update about important ongoing government works, of which the public is the ultimate beneficiary, and about which it has a right to be informed,” he said.

“So much so, that throughout the visits shown in the video I was always accompanied by the Gozo Ministry’s permanent secretary.”

He argued the video conformed to the ministerial code of ethics and was “respectful, factual and not partisan”, and insisted the commissioner’s office must never be used to “paralyse government from fulfilling its democratic duty to inform about its work”.

“The material was in the public interest and gave information on the government’s work in different sectors, which the public has a right to be informed about and the government equally has a duty to inform about,” he said.

He also attached screenshots from social media videos uploaded by the offices of the UK prime minister and the German chancellor to prove this was a common and accepted practice in other democracies.

‘Personal advert for the prime minister’

The arguments did not satisfy the commissioner, who found the video only focused on the prime minister, did not provide informative descriptions of the projects and had no commentary.

“The way this video is presented is intended as a personal advert for the prime minister,” he concluded.

“Democratic governments do have a duty to provide information, but this does not justify any advert produced by the government, and it certainly does not justify adverts aimed at promoting individuals.”

Azzopardi said that as a general rule if a minister is seen in an advert intended to publicise some government measure, it sends a message that the politician is trying to gain political points by appearing to the public as the person who should take credit for that government work.

He also dismissed examples from other countries, arguing they must be taken into a broader context of how they were produced and disseminated, and how they fit into the laws of their respective country.

“This office, therefore, deems this case as an unjustified spending of public funds, lack of separation between the role of prime minister and MP, and a lack of respect towards impartiality in the public service,” Azzopardi concluded.

That is when he wrote to Abela, informing him of his decision and offering him the option to apologise.

In his subsequent replies, Abela argued he was not being given the right to a fair hearing because he had not yet been given the chance to submit evidence to prove him right.

The commissioner hit back, saying Abela was, in fact, given the chance to reply – which he did – and had even sent in screenshots of videos from the UK and Germany as evidence. But he offered Abela another chance to provide new evidence.

In his reply, Abela elaborated on why it was not right for Azzopardi to issue a decision without giving him the chance of a fair hearing but provided no further evidence to justify the public spend on the video.

PM said he had never seen the video before complaint

Azzopardi further extended the deadline for new evidence, to which Abela replied that the material in question was sent to newsrooms that reported it as news of public interest.

He also argued he had never seen the video before receiving notification of Cassola’s complaint and that the responsibility of any wrongdoing had to stop at the video’s producers – who, he said, were given a copy of the guidelines and were expected to abide by them.

The commissioner concluded Abela’s arguments did not justify the public spend and said that despite not being directly involved in the production of the video, ultimate responsibility still lay with him.

MPs in the parliamentary committee will now discuss the report and vote on whether to adopt it. If it is adopted, they will then need to decide on how to sanction the prime minister.

In a reaction, Cassola said it is sad to witness a country led by a Prime Minister who, apart from being a "compulsive liar", is also arrogant and haughty and treats the Maltese people as his feudal serfs.