The following are some observations from the report by George Hyzler, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, about Joseph Muscat accepting expensive bottles of wine from Yorgen Fenech.

First of all, Hyzler remarked that the inventory of gifts presented by Muscat five weeks after the Fenech gifts were revealed does not conform to what is required by the Ministry of Finance and which should be notified to the Auditor General, according to circular MF 14/99.

This circular demands that there must be the following descriptions: the asset ID; asset type; department code; date of the report and the signatures of the official of the House of Representatives and of the official responsible for the inventory. All these elements were missing in Muscat’s declaration.

The commissioner then noted that a gift of €6,000 cannot be considered as a gift of small value and therefore, prima facie, this constitutes a breach of articles 4.8 and 8.4 of the Code of Ethics for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

Hyzler clearly states that accepting such a gift does not reflect very well on the behaviour of a former prime minister with an entrepreneur who is extensively involved in business transactions with the government led by Muscat.

Moreover, the personalised dating of the three bottles of wine had a very significant meaning for the prime minister and not for others. Muscat accepted this gift as an individual and not as head of government, and therefore this constituted a personal obligation towards Fenech.

The fact that Muscat did not keep the gift and left it in the then official residence of the prime minister at Girgenti does not change anything and is, in the best of hypotheses, irrelevant, according to Hyzler.

Article 4.8 of the Code of Ethics for Ministers states that ministers should not accept gifts not only if the gifts compromise their judgement, but also if the gifts: “may reasonably create an impression that they are compromising their judgement”.

Article 8.4 of the same Code of Ethics does not even enter into the merit of whether the gift compromises the judgement of the minister who receives it. It only states that a minister must not accept gifts that “might place them under an inappropriate obligation”.

Hyzler concludes that in the Pétrus case, the above two articles of the Code of Ethics were broken.

Such behaviour can give rise to suspicion that big entrepreneurs exercise undue influence, independently of the alleged criminal connections of Fenech. It is therefore important that the prime minister and ministers always keep a necessary social distance from such persons. This is the reason why Articles 4.8 and 8.4 of the Code of Ethics emphasise the importance of perception.  

In mature democracies abroad, they would resign for much less- Arnold Cassola

A prime minister or minister should be on the forefront setting the example and ensuring that they do not give the perception that they could be taking decisions that could affect the interests of those who gave them gifts.

In view of all the above, the Commissioner for Standards arrived at the conclusion that Muscat’s behaviour in this case constitutes a “prima facie” breach of the following articles of the Code of Ethics:

“4.7: Ministers shall ensure that there is no conflict of interest between their public duties and personal interests.

“4.8: Ministers shall not accept any gifts or benefits, except as provided in this Code, that may or may reasonably create an impression that they are compromising their judgement or place them under an inappropriate obligation.

“5.7: Honesty – Ministers shall avoid entering into conflicts of interest between the public interest and their private interest and shall provide complete and correct information to parliament, to the cabinet and the public in general.

“5.9: Leadership – Ministers shall embrace and be inspired by these values in order to lead by example.

“8.4: No minister shall accept gifts, donations, hospitality or services from anyone  that may place him under  an obligation towards such person or persons and this shall also apply to immediate family members of the minister. In case of doubt, the prime minister shall be consulted.”  

What was the reaction of the protagonists on the government side at such a ruling?

Muscat stated that the ruling by Commissioner for Standards in Public Life is based on perceptions and not on facts.

Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis argued that such a breach was not a grievous one and that no further sanctions were warranted.

In the past, Joe Cassar had to resign as a minister for something similar.

Abroad, in mature democracies, they would resign for much less.

Now we have too many coincidences, too many excuses and too many warped justifications.

It is exactly these type of responses and attitudes that define the seriousness of the moral rot which Maltese political leaders have led us to.

Arnold Cassola is former secretary general of the European Green Party.