It’s 1994. A fourth-term, backbench Nationalist MP Lino Gauci Borda resigns from parliament. The newspaper Alternattiva had just revealed that he had a UK investment account, with £48,000, that he had never declared to the taxman.
Gauci Borda was a respected family doctor. No one doubted that he had earned the money honestly. Many professionals like him had opened such undeclared accounts in the politically- fraught 1970s and 1980s. But not declaring money to the taxman is still illicit.
Gauci Borda did not invoke context. He accepted an MP should be held to the highest standards.
In resigning, he salvaged his honour. When he died, a little over two years ago, both sides of the House hailed him as a gentleman.
Now, almost 30 years later, we have the Rosianne Cutajar case. The standards commissioner has concluded, on the preponderance of extensive, documented circumstantial evidence, that she pocketed almost €50,000 without declaring it to either the taxman or parliament.
Allowing for inflation, the money is not in the same ballpark as the £48,000. But the circumstances are far worse. If the commissioner is right, then Cutajar’s political sins go beyond undeclared income.
If he’s right, then as MP she got involved in one of Yorgen Fenech’s deals, when he had already been publicly named as the owner of Dubai secret company 17 Black, itself implicated in the corruption surrounding Panamagate. (He hadn’t yet been arrested on charges of masterminding the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.)
You don’t have to assume Fenech is guilty of money laundering. Public standards require that MPs (let alone ministers) steer clear of anyone with such a cloud of suspicion over their heads.
If the commissioner is right, then Cutajar is also guilty of lying to him, showing no sense of wrongdoing and, perhaps, pocketing money she was duty-bound to return (since the business deal fell through).
The money may be less than in the Gauci Borda case but the charges are far more serious.
Cutajar has reacted by criticising the commissioner for believing others, not her, and defiantly said she’ll remain an MP and contest the next election on Labour’s ticket.
She’s quite clear. She’s not budging. And she plans to be back.
Labour, however, has not been clear. It’s true that Cutajar is now no longer a junior minister (though we don’t know if she’s resigned or been sacked). Given the charges and Cutajar’s response, however, there’s more that needs to be said.
Cutajar says she’ll be a Labour candidate at the election that’s round the corner. Does Labour plan to accept her? We should be told.
Does Labour accept the commissioner’s conclusions? Presumably (although we should take nothing for granted). All the conclusions? If yes, Labour accepts that Cutajar lied.
Is that someone the party wants as a political candidate? She’s showing no remorse.
Public standards require that MPs (let alone ministers) steer clear of anyone with such a cloud of suspicion over their heads- Ranier Fsadni
Then there’s her current status as a Labour MP. She can’t be forced to resign her seat. But Labour can choose to force her out of its parliamentary group. What’s Labour’s position?
If Labour says that being sacked as minister is enough, that’s interesting but calls for explanation.
The Gauci Borda precedent set a different standard. He resigned even though what he did wasn’t half as bad as what Cutajar is accused of doing. Is Labour saying that Gauci Borda’s resignation wasn’t necessary?
Next, Labour expressed a view on these matters only five-and-a-half years ago in the Joe Cassar case. The former Nationalist health minister was a backbench MP then. He was accused that, while minister, he had accepted house works without payment to the tune of €8,000 and a cheap second-hand car for his daughter.
Cassar has always insisted that he had tried strenuously to pay the bills but that payment was not accepted and intimated (without saying anything explicitly) there was a lot more to the case, including a frame-up, but that he was precluded by professional secrecy from saying more.
It didn’t matter to Labour. It wanted Cassar’s resignation. Fed up of the onslaught, Cassar resigned from parliament while denouncing the smears. He lost his political career but saved his honour.
Meanwhile, Labour insisted the standard was resignation – even for a case involving far less money, no lies and no figure publicly suspected of money laundering.
Has that standard changed? Resignation from parliament was insisted on as recently as the last legislature. Most current Labour MPs were baying for Cassar’s resignation then.
If Labour replies that Cutajar has resigned too, it should be called out. To resign from a junior ministry keeps your career intact; to resign from parliament destroys it. Are we really saying that there is a higher penalty for backbenchers than for ministers? Even if the minister’s offences are worse? What kind of public standard is that?
Labour shouldn’t be allowed to evade these questions. We should be told whether Labour accepts all the commissioner’s conclusions. If it doesn’t, which ones and why not?
If it does accept all the conclusions, then does it plan to expel Cutajar or let her run again under Labour’s banner?
The Cutajar case is an opportunity for Labour to talk about its public standards. Expelling Cutajar – which is the logical outcome if all the commissioner’s conclusions are accepted – comes at little electoral cost, given the polls.
The case is all about values and standards. What Labour does about Cutajar will speak eloquently about both.
