|
The Dar Malta PAC hearing is a first in Maltese political accountability. But Karl Schembri writes the final verdict remains in the hands of the public
You only see what your eyes want to see, Madonna says in her song, Frozen, and indeed that’s what the two major parties have done when commenting on the Public Accounts Committee’s hearings into the controversial Lm9 million purchase of Dar Malta.
“The Maltese people are convinced the government’s decision on Dar Malta was the right one,” the government’s Department of Information said in a triumphant press release last Thursday destined only to massage the message among the PN hardcore and give the impression that all is well on the frontline. Typically, the statement hits out at the Opposition leader, Alfred Sant, but its authors failed to realise that Dar Malta has stirred the outrage in virtually all sectors of society.
“After the three sittings of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, the people’s seething anger over the extravagant purchase of the Dar Malta property in Brussels is justified,” said Opposition leader Alfred Sant. “The Maltese and Gozitans can see for themselves that nothing has changed from the intolerable manner things were done under the Fenech Adami administration.”
This bipolar, schizophrenic view of the world ingrained in Maltese politics is clearly nothing new. After all, it was Sant who interpreted an unequivocal referendum defeat last year as a victory, but this time round the real victory belongs to the public interest and transparency.
It was a unique event, to see the Prime Minister and the only unelected Cabinet member, Richard Cachia Caruana being grilled in public for the first time in political history by the committee members who cared to confront them with all the questions, allegations and spin that have been hitting headlines since MaltaToday broke the story on 27 June about the government’s controversial purchase.
It was clear from the start that for the government side the issue was a waste of time. Investments Minister Austin Gatt (a PAC member) betrayed this attitude clearly through his body language and his bursts of “ejja ha mmorru ‘l hemm (let’s get on with this)” every now and then as he looked at his wristwatch, although the Prime Minister seemed quite comfortable while under scrutiny.
It’s a pity that the hearing could not be filmed; nor could the public present watch the faces of those summoned by the committee as they gave their version of events, given that they were seated with their backs facing the audience. On the other hand one could see PAC Chairman, Charles Mangion (Labour) taking down notes meticulously in a bid to establish a chronology of events leading to the final decision, while Cachia Caruana kept hopping from one seat to another prior to his deposition, speaking to MIMCOL officials and others.
But the ‘evidence’ is now public and reported, and recordings are even available on the parliament’s website for anyone who bothers to download them.
There isn’t any need for Joe Saliba’s condescending press releases quoting real estate tycoon Albert Mizzi saying that he would have bought the property himself were he not negotiating for the government, to realise there will be no turning back on this decision, but that was never the idea behind the hearing. From now on, every minister, cabinet member, permanent secretary and every other high-ranking government official knows that he is up for scrutiny and will potentially have to answer for his actions.
The political verdict ultimately rests with the electorate and it is a credit to the independent press that much of the investigations carried in the last four months have shaped this inquiry of sorts, and the controversy still rages on.
The hearings confirmed that architect Martin Xuereb and legal advisor Peter Caruana Galizia were commissioned on a direct order by MIMCOL, with Cachia Caruana insisting he only gave his approval to Xuereb’s appointment and that he had declared the architect had carried out private work for him on his Mdina residence. Cachia Caruana also insisted that he did not even see a copy of the contract after it was signed by government.
MaltaToday’s story that the government had originally intended building a penthouse residence on top of the nine-storey building was confirmed by Cachia Caruana, as was the news that the refurbishment of the property included the removal of asbestos from the ceilings. Gonzi said the removal of the cancer-inducing material formed part of the total expenditure budgeted and capped at Lm2.5 million (including construction works, furniture, IT and equipment). Architect Martin Xuereb specified it will cost Lm10,000 just to remove the asbestos.
An interesting detail that emerged from the hearings was the fact that despite the notorious list of “16 properties” earmarked originally, the “short-listed” two were not even on the list.
Gonzi relied unquestioningly on Cofinimmo’s declaration that it had made a EUR 1 million profit out of the deal, adding that he believed they made even less because of taxes. It does, however, remain a fact that Super One news editor Gino Cauchi reported the Cofinimmo audit report states that the Belgian estate agency made a Lm4.4 million profit and is publicly sticking to his version.
The question of whether taxes will have to be paid on the parts of Malta House that are to be leased to commercial companies is still unanswered by the Prime Minister who said on Monday that he was awaiting further advice.
Gonzi said the government would not lose tax exemptions on the entire property if it commercialised part of it, but it was still unclear whether tax would have to be paid on the commercial parts. He said that in the coming weeks he will be taking the decision on whether government entities such as the Malta Tourism Authority and Air Malta will be housed in the same building, depending on whether leasing the space to private companies would make more commercial sense.
Former Foreign Minister John Dalli swallowed back his historical j’accuse published in the form of a letter on The Malta Independent on Sunday, where he had unequivocally declared that Cachia Caruana had “conceived, controlled and pushed” the whole project.
“I was misunderstood,” he said. What he meant was that Cachia Caruana, as Fenech Adami’s Personal Assistant and then as Permanent Representative had to be involved and was responsible to find a building for his staff. Leo Brincat persisted with his questioning, claiming Dalli was “watering down” his original statement, but Dalli retorted that Brincat’s was only an “interpretation” like many others which he did not bother clarifying in newspaper articles.
Still Dalli would not commit himself when asked whether he agreed with the purchase, given that he had not seen all the relevant documentation as the Cabinet decision was taken in his absence while he was abroad. He also revealed that he was never informed there were extra floors that would not be used to house the embassy but for commercial lease.
But the most controversial detail that emerged from it all was Caruana Galizia’s declaration on Tuesday that Cachia Caruana “had a say in the choice of site,” actually that he “was definitely involved” in the choice of nr 25, Rue Archimede.
If the two parties saw positive outcomes from these hearings that somehow confirmed their beliefs, Caruana Galizia and his wife only saw red when they read reports about his declaration the following day, realising the full consequences of it.
“The man who was singled out by Opposition speakers as the one who had been chosen in ‘friends of friends’ fashion to be the legal expert on the purchase of the Brussels property for a Maltese embassy yesterday turned out to be the same Opposition’s greatest asset,” wrote Noel Grima in The Malta Independent. “In one of the most memorable own goals by any government consultant in living memory, Peter Caruana Galizia, husband of columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia, yesterday told the Public Accounts Committee he ‘thinks it was Richard Cachia Caruana who chose the site’ of the Brussels embassy.”
For the record, the Parliament’s transcript clearly shows that Grima’s report was faithful to Caruana Galizia’s declaration.
“The funny thing is that this was friendly fire in more than one meaning,” Grima further observed, adding salt to the wound. “Dr Caruana Galizia was not being questioned by the opposition MPs on the PAC, but by Parliamentary Secretary Tonio Fenech who asked the very last question in Dr Caruana Galizia’s questioning, an innocuous question to round up the question and answer session.”
Sources at The Malta Independent, the paper which hosts Daphne Caruana Galizia’s opinion columns speak of an apparent fallout with the columnist and, in fact, she gave her opinion piece a miss last Thursday.
The newspaper published an unedited front-page “reply” by Peter Caruana Galizia slamming Noel Grima for reporting his declaration and threatening with suing for libel.
“I have read the reports in all the other daily newspapers, as well the transcripts from the recording of my statements, and cannot help wondering what Fr Grima found to be of such groundbreaking news value that he chose to run that insulting story,” Caruana Galizia wrote in his scathing attack on Grima. “Fr Grima chose to insult me by remarking that I have been the opposition’s greatest asset in this matter. It is a remark worthy of a libel suit, but purely out of respect for my wife, I will not sue the newspaper that she works for. I would say that it is Fr Grima who has in fact played this part, even if unwittingly.”
It had to be Labour MP Leo Brincat to defend Grima, who had religiously attended and reported all the three seven-hours long hearings: “What was reported was 100 per cent correct, and even under-reported,” Brincat said.
With perhaps not all said and done, it is now up to the public to make up its mind.
karl@newsworksltd.com
|
