Even as Joseph Muscat accuses his political opponents of envy of his electoral results, he morphs into Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri. And that is bad for all of us.
This week, the Nationalist Party stated, after the arrests of the former Nexia BT directors, that the Egrant inquiry should be revisited. Muscat retorted by saying the PN resented his landslide victories. Now did we hear that before?
Oh, yes, five years ago, when Muscat called a May Day mass meeting to send a message of defiance to that so-called cabal of international media and European member states, all of which were said to be envious of Malta’s economic results.
We heard it when Mizzi attributed the accusations of sleaze to envy of his achievements as minister. And we’ve just heard it from Schembri, attributing his arrest to resentment of his entrepreneurial success and the ‘bridge’ he built with this newspaper.
The names of Mizzi and Schembri today are mud. Mizzi was kicked out of the Labour parliamentary group. Robert Abela disowns Schembri as not even a party member.
Indeed, on his way to becoming Labour leader, Abela said he didn’t believe Schembri lost his phone. So the Labour prime minister believes Schembri was obstructing justice.
The only significant personage to have remained seemingly neutral is Muscat himself. Except, in this case, neutrality is damning. It fuels speculation – domestically and abroad, where reputation is of economic import – that Muscat is neutral because of complicity with the Panama gang.
His justification is that he must let the institutional process take its course. What, even about the phone? Even when he directed the tourism authority chief to give a fat contract to Mizzi, right after he had unceremoniously exited from cabinet?
Muscat accuses the PN of being disloyal to institutions since they want the Egrant case reopened. But loyalty to institutions doesn’t mean faith in their infallibility. It means trust in their integrity.
No one doubts the integrity of the judicial system when new information raises new questions on a case. Since the Egrant inquiry was closed, much new information has risen to the surface. We have learned the identity of the owner of 17 Black. We know Muscat accepted lavish gifts from Yorgen Fenech and had a private WhatsApp chat group with him. We have also seen Muscat enjoy a lifestyle that appears at odds with what is publicly known about his wealth.
Then there is the way he’s continued to treat Mizzi and Schembri gingerly, no matter what fresh scandal arose. The charges against Brian Tonna and Karl Cini, of the dissolved Nexia BT, raise reasonable doubts about everything they’ve said about Egrant.
Muscat could well be innocent of all charges, still the victim of a despicable lie. But that doesn’t make the new questions go away. They need to be settled for the sake of Malta’s reputation, not just Muscat’s.
Muscat was prime minister. Any cloud hanging over him is also a cloud over the office, hurting all his successors, beginning with Abela.
Recognising grave political error helps the country recover its reputation- Ranier Fsadni
Muscat accuses his opponents of scant regard for institutions. Brave words from a man who has shown such disdain for the institutions he represented. There’s the Office of the Prime Minister, which he damaged by accepting gifts he never should have, and by keeping in its orbit people whose behaviour brought Castille into disrepute.
There’s parliament, when he demanded that Labour MPs vote they had confidence in Mizzi – when it seems, from their testimony to the Caruana Galizia inquiry, that many in cabinet had none.
There’s the Commission for Standards in Public Life, whose findings about his breaches of ethics Muscat has airily dismissed.
Not least there is the Labour Party, whose loyal base he mobilised in defence against the stench surrounding Panama. He alone was the bulwark protecting Mizzi and Schembri, dragging others with him because he demanded it. Labour today stands greatly damaged by this defence.
The same loyal base will retort that Muscat has done great things for Malta. Well, you could believe that, if you must, and still recognise that he owes the party and the country an apology.
Such an apology would have nothing to do with the ongoing judicial process. The apology has to do with the political damage suffered by the country and borne by everyone: his successors, the public resources being used up to avoid failing the Moneyval test, the commercial impediments faced by entrepreneurs, the arched eyebrows and thin smiles that the young, if attempting a career abroad, encounter when Malta is mentioned.
Schembri might well be found innocent of all legal charges, Mizzi might never have to face any and, still, Muscat would be responsible for inflicting huge political damage, given that Schembri’s behaviour has been so opaque, arrogant and unorthodox as to raise grave suspicions in everyone, at home and abroad.
About the suspicions there can be no doubt. Nor about the damage they continue to cause. It was Muscat’s duty to snuff them out immediately for the country’s sake. He didn’t.
Instead, he defended Schembri from the cabinet by saying Schembri was his responsibility. So now he should own the reputational damage. If he was duped, he’s responsible too: no one else was deceived.
An apology would repair some of the damage. Recognising grave political error helps the country recover its reputation. Official apologies give an assurance that we can tell right from wrong.
Apologies show real loyalty to institutions by doing what it takes to help them recover their reputation. Refusing to apologise: that’s real disdain.