Edward Scicluna is the latest cabinet minister pointing fingers at the mastermind – Joseph Muscat. At the Daphne Caruana Galizia inquiry, Scicluna let rip: Muscat was running a “kitchen cabinet” which regularly “bypassed the system”. The “inner core”, he revealed, consisted of Muscat, chief of staff Keith Schembri and star candidate Konrad Mizzi.
A long list of accusations followed: Projects Malta (i.e. Konrad Mizzi) was not transparent and did not provide any information. Projects Malta “did what they liked”.
The American University of Malta, Vitals and Electrogas deals were not vetted by his ministry. He would have steered clear of the Vitals deal. He advised Muscat to remove Mizzi in 2016. The majority of the parliamentary group had given Muscat the same advice. He ignored them.
The most damning revelation was that Muscat’s government was like “a coin with two sides”. On one side, it was doing a good job. But on the other, there was a shadow, the elephant in the room.
He spent the bulk of his testimony distancing himself from Muscat and his “inner core”. “I wasn’t part of the inner core”, “there was no buddy buddy”, he was not involved in the Gaffarena scandal. He insinuated that Vitals wasn’t even discussed at cabinet level, he was not involved in the Montenegro wind farm deal, he did not know of Muscat’s friendship with Yorgen Fenech, he did not even know Fenech. He felt “let down” by Muscat’s kitchen cabinet.
So why did Scicluna support Muscat and Mizzi repeatedly in votes of confidence in parliament? His unbelievable explanation is that since he had already given up his €100,000 post in Brussels, he could not be expected to also give up his ministerial salary and perks by voting against his government and resigning.
In short, Scicluna expects us to believe that it was only his overwhelming greed that stopped him taking a stand against Muscat. He wants us to believe that he was against Muscat all along.
He peddles the myth that he was ‘only’ the finance minister and had nothing to do at all with all of Muscat’s corrupt deals – he only occasionally just signed some guarantees.
The minister of finance since 2013 in Muscat’s cabinet had nothing to do with any of the major projects of his own government.
Not so fast. Why is Scicluna prostrating himself in front of an entire nation and admitting that it was his unquenchable greed that kept him on Muscat’s side?
The answer is that greed is not a crime. Corruption is. By proffering greed and spinelessness as an alibi, Scicluna is trying to wriggle out of a vice.
The truth is that Scicluna has been covering for the grave offences of the “inner core” all along. He cannot wash away his guilt so easily. He has been a seasoned defender of his corrupt colleagues. “If you have a house and somebody comes at night and steals something, you might discover a year later that you have something missing,” he fumbled in reference to the Montenegro scandal.
Deputy director Alfred Zammit confirmed under oath on February 3, 2020 that the FIAU had reasonable suspicion of money laundering by both Schembri and Mizzi for years. But Scicluna refused to supply parliament with information about these investigations in December 2017.
Scicluna peddles the myth that he was ‘only’ the finance minister and had nothing to do at all with all of Muscat’s corrupt deals- Kevin Cassar
He failed to condemn the failure of the police to act on multiple FIAU reports when questioned in 2018.
When the European Banking Authority concluded that the FIAU, which was Scicluna’s responsibility, breached the third anti-money laundering directive in 2016, he simply “disagreed”. He claimed he was defending the FIAU not Pilatus bank, which held Schembri’s account which received €100,000 from Brian Tonna’s British Virgin Island account.
In 2017, when Maltese entities were named in the Paradise Papers leak, Scicluna claimed that “the country has nothing to hide”.
In the meantime, he had been raging that secrets were being exposed and doing his utmost to hide everything.
Ruthless Scicluna threatened the FIAU board about leaked reports. He wanted to know who leaked them and why. “I want to know whether they were really apolitical”, why certain “characters” had been mentioned and not others. “Were these reports written to be leaked?”
He was not disgusted with the contents of the FIAU reports on money laundering. He was disgusted by the whistle-blowers who leaked the reports.
Only 12 days after Labour’s 2017 victory, Scicluna sacked two FIAU officials. One was simply told not to report to work. He acknowledged that “ultimately Prof. Scicluna is the boss”.
The two officials had worked on the money transferred by the LNG terminal company into the notorious 17 Black. They also identified alleged links between Azerbaijan’s ruling clan and Muscat’s government.
Scicluna refused to clarify in parliament whether he was involved in the decision to sack the officials or whether he communicated with the FIAU governance board, officials or employees (PQ 2702, 2703).
Werner Langen, the European Parliament’s Panama Papers committee head, sent Scicluna a letter demanding to know why the two were dismissed. Scicluna failed to answer. He simply replied that both were still under probation and dismissal was legal.
In April 2018, the quiet Scicluna accused David Casa that he was “bad-mouthing” the country and harming Malta. In the subsequent wave of hate speech against the MEP, one of Scicluna’s followers called Casa a “traitor” and that he “deserved to die at the gallows”. Scicluna liked the comment and endorsed it.
In December 2018, Joseph Muscat was too busy to speak to CBS for its 60-minute programme. Instead he sent his palatable-face Scicluna. Faced with accusations of widespread corruption, Scicluna countered that these were “mere allegations”.
He insisted, “It looks bad, but it’s not”.
Making false statements, obstruction of justice, accessory after the fact and perjury are all crimes. Greed is not.
Kevin Cassar is a consultant vascular surgeon and former PN candidate.