Embattled Nationalist Party leader Adrian Delia sat down with Keith Micallef to outline his views on the way forward after having lost confidence votes in the parliamentary group and executive committee.
The PN has reached a dead end, with two diametrically opposed factions. Something has to give but there does not seem any will from either side to move an inch. The option is you either make way or else go for a vote of confidence in the general council. What is your intention?
We are at a crossroads not a dead end. There is a divergence between the parliamentary group and the executive committee [who have both expressed they have no confidence in Adrian Delia] and the party members (tesserati), councillors and the electorate.
Where there is reason, there is always a way out. It does not mean it is easy. Choices have to be made and decisions taken. One has to see what is best for the party at a time when the country needs a strong opposition. Who is going to determine it? The parliamentary group, the executive committee or the people? I am a staunch believer in democracy even at the risk of making the wrong choices, such as what happened in Malta, where the electorate reconfirmed a corrupt government.
The people did speak in surveys and have repeatedly said that the party under your watch has made no inroads. Is not that a clear sign that you have failed?
The verdict I am bound to respect is not the electorate’s but that of party members. The constitution dictates who the opposition leader is rather than the parliamentary group. I am bound by the PN statute which states that a leader is elected by the tesserati and voted out by the general council. This is what I did last year. I am considering all options including this one.
Should you go for such an option, would you abide by it if the general council expresses no confidence in you, or would you seek a final verdict by going to the members?
I will choose to go where and when I deem it is best in the interest of the party. I will not be hard-headed. I will not ignore the fact that the parliamentary group is fragmented or the vote taken by the executive committee. I have called an executive committee meeting for Thursday with the agenda being ‘concrete action’ on the current political situation. I am consulting with people, taking advice and will do what I deem is in the best interest of the party which may be seeking a vote of confidence in the general council.
Are you saying that the ultimate verdict rests with the general council not the members?
Yes, when dealing with a confidence vote, it rests with the general council. The statute also deals with the scenario of whether such a vote can be called twice within two years.
Executive committee president Alex Perici Calascione has said that in this circumstance, there is no such impediment…
I will not object if we need to go there. I will not try to defend my position through a technicality.
You have also thrown cold water on the prospect of going to the general council on grounds that last year’s verdict was not respected by your critics.
I don’t want people to back off but to work. The best way is that anybody in disagreement doesn’t leave, as the party would be losing out. The last thing the PN can afford is to lose more people. When I go to parliament, I see various government MPs who were once in the PN and this hurts me.
But this trend has not been reversed under your leadership…
No it has not, and I cannot succeed on my own or if we stick to a militant approach. We do not need tribal politics. Taking Labour head-on will only serve to rally their supporters around the party. The PN behaves differently as whenever there is reluctance towards a person, these doubts are further augmented by putting spokes in the wheels or doing nothing.
We have adopted a constructive approach and the proposals we made during the COVID-19 pandemic were testament to this; apart from our fight against the hospitals concession agreement, among others.
If I don’t win that vote, I am out. If I win it, what shall I do with those who still refuse to cooperate?
How are you going to come out of this crisis right now? The biggest concern for the party supporters is its future. Will the rebel MPs be allowed to contest the next general election?
That is premature to say as such a matter will be dealt with by one of the newly-formed commissions vetting the candidates. It will not be the decision of Adrian Delia. This is not a one-man party and there is trust in our good governance proposals which we outlined to the Venice Commission. As for the executive committee, decisions must be taken.
Do you exclude linking any vote of confidence with the political future of the rebel MPs?
Let me speculate to make myself clear. If I don’t win that vote, I am out. If I win it, what shall I do with those who still refuse to cooperate? Intrinsically, yes, there is a link and I think it very clear, and it will be certainly very clear in the minds and pens of those who eventually, would be voting if it comes to a vote.
It seems like you are seriously inclined to seek that option?
For us to go forward, it is useless having a good leader and a good group. We need a good leader with a good group working together as a team. You do not need a squad, you need a team.
This means that the repercussions of such a vote would go beyond Adrian Delia but towards the party’s long-term prospects.
I must shoulder my responsibilities, but others have to do the same.
Is this not a risky option which might result in a split?
If the people decide they still want me at the helm, then it is up to those who have expressed no faith in me to make their choices. If they would still not care about the people’s verdict at that point, then they are not politicians at all.
Calls to reconsider your position are coming from heavyweights like Lawrence Gonzi, Louis Galea as well as those who until recently were very supportive of your leadership as is the case of Richard Muscat and Michael Asciak. You are saying you are doing the right thing but your support is dwindling.
I never said I will not opt for a vote. However, I also give weight to the hundreds of messages I am receiving from so-called ordinary people. My mission is to give the party back to the people and not take the approach of a philosopher-king who dictates decisions. People matter, and so does their will expressed in a vote. From the opposition, we have to show that we treat people with respect and dignity.
Do you find it strange that Labour is openly supporting you in this crisis?
Not strange at all as this is a clear political strategy. What is really bizarre is that I do not have support from my own people. Labour’s intent is to create more division.
This crisis was triggered by the publication of the WhatsApp messages exchanged with Yorgen Fenech. You denied receiving any money from him but at the same time you could not satisfy your own party with hard evidence, saying that these messages disappeared from your mobile phone, together with Fenech’s profile. This means you are not in a position to quell these doubts completely.
I showed you my mobile before this interview and, as you can vouch, Yorgen’s name is no longer listed in the WhatsApp contacts. I did not delete anything. My understanding is that it was deleted from other quarters. There was nothing unethical, illegal or abusive on my part.
What about the invite for lunch?
Since I have no record, I cannot speak about any dates. Certainly there were no contacts after Fenech’s involvement in the Daphne Caruana Galizia assassination probe as that would have automatically mentally triggered that I should stay away from him. I never had a relationship with him or his companies, not even as a legal advisor. I never met him before venturing into politics. I have already confirmed under oath that I never received money from him.
I went to the police asking for an investigation in case there is an attempt to pin a date on something of which I don’t have a record. I have no problem in publishing any chats with Fenech but I find it very strange no such chats have been published of people who have been his childhood friends or have business interests in Electrogas, which was a vehicle of corruption.
I am open to scrutiny and willing to have chats published with dates. There are people who benefit by putting the spotlight on me. However, I am not attacking the media.
You were, however, after the source when the story was published in The Sunday Times of Malta…
Only the police have possession of Fenech’s chats. These leaks are very serious.
Are you saying it was a strategic leak with a political motive?
Yes. In February 2018 I filed a constitutional case against the attorney general. A month later, news came out that I was under investigation by the FIAU headed by the attorney general. Why? Was it a coincidence? Two years have passed and I have never been summoned for questioning by the police.
As soon as Delia files a case against the attorney general, starts proceedings on Egrant, wins the case on Egrant and files the case against Vitals and starts getting evidence, another allegation crops up. Who is behind all this? News portals are even saying I am under a magisterial inquiry on allegations I received money from Fenech when this is not the case, as the subject of the probe is not myself but the allegation.
Hearing that their leader was in contact with Fenech and that he even entertained the prospect of having lunch with him, raises huge doubts among PN supporters.
Things need to be put into context. I had said after 17 Black came out that I did not have lunch with him and that I did not physically meet him. I told Fenech that Pierre Portelli would be taking care of the logistics for the lunch, as a polite way of refusing. Let us not forget this allegation was made by Keith Schembri. You cannot question Schembri’s credibility throughout but then treat such a claim as if it were Bible truth.
Parliament is currently debating constitutional amendments in line with recommendations made by the Venice Commission. The PN has voted against all four bills presented so far because of the so-called anti-deadlock mechanism [under which certain decisions like appointing the president and the chief justice will no longer require a two-thirds parliamentary majority]. Will the opposition consider making a concession to reach an agreement?
We are looking at this as a whole comprehensive reform rather than a piecemeal approach. We are still in time for amendments at the committee stage. Our stand is to have institutions which have more checks and balances, less prime- ministerial powers and which give a stronger role to citizens.
We can find a solution if the government has a will to reach an agreement. With no anti-deadlock mechanism, the government can decide on its own [as it only needs an absolute majority].
If I renounce to that, I will be betraying democracy and the people. I will never do that.