Keith Schembri went to court on Monday assuring us that he would reveal the truth. Under oath he revealed that he had lied to the public. That answer, and others, revealed more than he wanted to – uncovering a whole set of issues he needs to explain to the authorities.
Let’s just focus on two answers (even though others don’t match up to the truth). There’s the admission that he knew from the start that the secret company 17 Black belonged to Yorgen Fenech, even though he had denied knowing who it belonged to when its ownership was revealed by this newspaper.
Then there’s his explanation for why he phoned Fenech for a 24-minute conversation as the latter was trying to flee the country, just before he was arrested.
He was asked to phone Fenech by the then prime minister, Joseph Muscat, to ensure Fenech did not try to escape. Two pure motives: following the prime minister’s instructions; and doing so to serve the interests of justice.
Stop saying it’s baloney. Whether true or false, it leaves Muscat with something to answer for. Both of Schembri’s answers are forced errors. He knows they expose him to more probing questions. But they were necessary to avoid immediate legal disaster.
Why did he effectively admit he lied to the public? Because that is not punishable at law, whereas lying under oath is. Had Schembri insisted he had not known who 17 Black belonged to, how could he explain, under oath, that months before he had spoken of ‘draft business plans’ with 17 Black?
Who does business with a company he knows nothing about? He couldn’t know anything else about the company, other than the owner. Fenech’s company was a secret one – not trading publicly.
Schembri admitted to a public lie in order to avoid being skewered in court.
So Schembri admitted to a public lie in order to avoid being skewered in court. The same goes for his explanation for phoning Fenech just before the latter was arrested. Both the timing and the motive were so suspect that he had to explain that he was not obstructing justice.
Otherwise, once more, he would have been skewered. Or he would have had to claim the right to remain silent, given that he himself is still being investigated. That would have gone down well for the man who promised to reveal all.
In making these forced errors, however, Schembri has exposed himself on new fronts. He’s raised questions about Muscat that the latter will have to answer.
First, his explanation for his Panama company is new. He gave a natural-sounding reason. Because of Nationalist Party malice, he needed a trust abroad (New Zealand) but, alas, for this he needed a company.
He only opened one in Panama because he was told it was the fastest (so all this was new to him too, despite having long had offshore companies in other secretive jurisdictions).
Why the speed? This company was opened, he said in the next breath, with the intention to be dormant. He only intended to trade with 17 Black after he left politics. Back to ‘draft plans’ again.
Why set up a company in 2013 (or 2015, if you believe Schembri) when you have years in politics ahead of you? The damning e-mails from his accountant show that trading was to begin from 2015 – at the rate of €5,000 per day.
Next question: If the explanation was so natural and innocent, why didn’t we hear it earlier? Why deny that you even knew who 17 Black belonged to? Why lie to the public, unless you’re covering up something wrong?
Final question, to keep things short: Did Muscat know that Schembri was lying in November 2018?
Because up to a year later, Muscat was praising Schembri’s integrity. This is one of the questions Muscat has to answer. Silence means he was in cahoots.
If Muscat tells us he was lied to, it means he was sleeping at the wheel. It’s back to the impossibility of having draft plans with a secret company whose owner you don’t know. Surely Muscat realised that at once.
But Schembri’s testimony raises even more embarrassing questions for Muscat.
If Joseph Muscat tells us he was lied to, it means he was sleeping at the wheel- Ranier Fsadni
That last-minute phone call to Fenech: Muscat has confirmed to this newspaper that he really did instruct Schembri to warn Fenech to remain in Malta. How interesting.
So now, it seems, Muscat did know about Schembri's friendship with Fenech. He can only have told Schembri to call Fenech because he knew Schembri's call had weight.
But haven't we been told that Schembri didn't tell anyone in the investigation briefing room about the friendship? So why had Muscat permitted Schembri to attend some briefings – any of them?
Next, what was the prime minister doing involving himself in police work? Muscat cast this intervention as going beyond the call of duty. No, it is a violation of separation of powers – a violation of his duty not to interfere in police work. A warning not to leave the country is the police's job.
Someone please explain why this is not the same as Lawrence Cutajar inserting himself in the hunt for Melvin Theuma's recordings. At least, Cutajar was a policeman. If Cutajar stands accused of jeopardising the operation (or worse), why not Muscat?
Muscat owes the public, as well as the authorities, answers to all these questions. Then, of course, other questions will follow.