|
Joe Zahra does not mean much to the PM’s press secretary. Indeed, I am quite sure the new press secretary couldn’t tell the difference between Sherlock Holmes and the man we know as Joe Zahra, a man I have known for a long time.
He was a police sergeant, a security guard and henchman of the disgraced late Lorry Sant, as well as an unlicensed private investigator, a consultant with the audiovisual and marketing company Where’s Everybody?, and last but not least a freemason.
With a curriculum vitae like that you can really go places. At least much further than Sherlock Holmes.
What Joe Zahra concocted in his illusionary dream world, by pinpointing that former Nationalist heavyweight John Dalli was on the take big time, fitted perfectly into the mould that has haunted Dalli’s image, an image fomented by those Dalli thought were his colleagues.
That the Prime Minister fell for Joe Zahra’s report and did not discard it, says quite a lot. In another country the story would be all over the place. Here they do everything to bury it and not mention Zahra’s connections with Where’s Everybody?, for example. Imagine if Saviour Balzan had been caught with his pants down. Just imagine the news coverage.
How the late Joe Fenech, lawyer Raphael Fenech Adami, and the Dutch company Simed, but also Lawrence Gonzi could give this man’s inventions credence, beggars belief. That people of the intelligence of Fenech, Lou Bondì, Joe Azzopardi and Gonzi allow themselves to even waste their precious time for such a man, leaves me breathless.
But Joe Zahra report’s has nothing to do with the truth or untruth.
11 June 2004 is a very special date. It was not only the day when Joe Fenech presented an invented half-baked investigative report to Lawrence Gonzi. It was the eve of the European Parliamentary elections in Malta.
And it was also three months after an acrimonious battle for the Nationalist leadership, when contender John Dalli was facing media scrutiny over the connections between the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line (IRISL) and to a firm in which his daughter was the company secretary, and also over his ministry’s purchase of air tickets from a company once linked again to his family.
But though many diehards loyal to Gonzi saw this as an opportunity to rout out Dalli, the Prime Minister is on record saying that: “…from the information I have regarding the IRISL case, it doesn’t seem that the allegations are substantiated…”.
So 11 June 2004 was supposed to be a very busy day for Dr Gonzi. It was a day before the European Parliamentary elections. And nevertheless, he found time to meet former PN minister Dr Joseph Fenech, then representing Simed, a persistent politician renowned for his unsavoury manners.
Nothing sinister about the timing of the meeting. But then again it says a lot about the PM’s priorities.
The next day, Dr Gonzi walks to the Marsaskala polling booth. There, right at his side, is the enduring photographic image of Joe Zahra with Lou Bondì behind him, peering into the polling station as Gonzi as his vote is cast.
Then Gonzi, through his numbers man the secretary-general Joe Saliba, already knows how badly the PN is faring in the polls. It would be the worst showing for the PN in decades.
Later on, John Dalli of course lost no opportunity to hit out at the botched electoral campaign and needless to say, yet another reflection of Joe Saliba’s political strategy. Let us face it, the chemistry between Dalli and his former canvasser is not great.
What happened later is history. But what I will not forget are the comments, articles and spin that followed 11 June right until Dalli’s resignation. The story is retold in this newspaper together with a timeline and some timely comments.
Now, I know that everyone, including Mr Bondì, have said that they had no knowledge of Zahra’s private investigation work. But I know Zahra to be a very garrulous person and someone who would mix socially with many of WE’s top people. But then I will take his word that Zahra never uttered a word to Mr Bondì about his fantastical inventions. After all Mr Zahra is, as we all know, a professional.
The last time I met him he was at a bar in B’Kara with Mr Bondi munching away at sausages and cheeses and asking me why I had it against him.
The first time I noticed him he was with Lorry Sant. I do not forget the individuals who flocked round the late Sant.
Some three weeks after the disastrous European Parliament elections, Lou Bondì, never a man to be accused of spin, organised one of his weekly programmes with the specific aim of highlighting the Iranian and ticketing accusations and allegations. His special guest was John Dalli.
A week later John Dalli would resign. His last paragraph in his long resignation letter to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi read: “The main attack took place on 9 June, three days before the EU elections through the publication of a story in The Times of Malta. Wonder of wonders, PBS departed from their normal practice, and not only covered the same story but practically read out The Times report.
“From inquiries that I have made all indications are pointing to a particular journalist. Ivan Camilleri, a journalist with PBS, kept up the attack on various occasions, for example in a press conference with yourself [Gonzi] on the announcement of the EU parliamentary elections and in a talk show that he hosts. I maintain that I have done nothing that requires censoring. But the situation that has developed through strategies worked out by different interests is one in which I cannot function. This is why I have decided to tender my resignation.”
Now most people remember that Mr Ivan Camilleri is now a journalist with The Times specialising in copying internet stories about the EU and sending them off to Valletta, and also had a direct link to the Prime Minister’s office, through his brother Alan Camilleri who was back then the PM’s communications coordinator.
Alan is by far the professional. But Ivan, whom I have known for ages, is a diehard Nationalist who cannot see the difference between a cockroach and someone who does not support Lawrence Gonzi.
Today’s news story does not do justice to anybody. It evokes a crisis that makes the Michael Falzon vs Alfred Sant debacle a minimal affair. The cherry on the cake was the reaction to Joe Zahra’s two-year prison sentence and a five-year interdiction in the PN media. In Friday’s In-Nazzjon, the news was hidden on page 2 and not a reference to John Dalli. And to add insult to injury, the PN’s internet portal maltarightnow.com stated that the sentence proved Alfred Sant’s accusations were false and vindicated the government.
How vile. How base.
How stupid do the PN bigwigs think Nationalists are?
Now we actually know that the iron fist of Joe Saliba on the PN media is indeed true. And he should have been more sensible and sensitive before allowing such reporting to take place.
It is said that Joe Zahra’s report was known to no one other than the Prime Minister. But if Lawrence Gonzi had been more perceptive, he would have shot down Joe Zahra’s report instantly.
This is the same Joe Zahra who had no licence to act as a private investigator and who had already invented stories for the Italian magazine Panorama.
And so, who is advising the PM?
In the new Nationalist Party, it appears that if you happen to have in your CV a past employment as Lorry Sant’s henchman it works wonders. If you gave your life to your party for years on end, fighting among other things Labour thuggery and excesses, then your place is in the history book – but not the ones published by the PN which have been very successful in erasing from their records people who gave everything to the party, like Carmel Cacopardo and John Dalli. There many others I could mention. But now is not the time.
This could have been a moment for Lawrence. He could have lifted the phone and made some small talk to John Dalli and won him over. I do not think he can do it. The truth is he really does not want John Dalli; here, there or anywhere.
Have you have come by Martin Scicluna’s piece in Din l-Art Helwa’s Vigilo? It is a damning piece of writing, more so when it comes from a person who was a civil servant with the British Ministry of Defence, a non-political person and someone who is respected by all and sundry, except for a handful of two to three Nationalist ministers and three blind PN fundamentalists.
He is also a consultant to the government on matters related to migration. But he has also been branded a stooge and a person with no respect for the recent history of this country by Il-Mument, the party organ that hits the newspaper stalls just feed us, just as is Kullhadd’s fashion, one-sided propaganda.
It is all part of the typical political culture of cutting up your critics by discrediting them and painting them as Labourites or Nationalists, depending on the circumstance. You see if you aren’t a blue you must be a green or a red.
In his Vigilo opinion, on the rationalisation exercise that saw the extension of the development boundaries, Scicluna writes and I quote: “The vote taken in parliament on July 26 represents an act of institutionalised vandalism on Malta’s environment in the last 20 years.”
His article appeared before the MaltaToday interview with Joe Falzon, the planning authority’s auditor. This is not a happy time for George Pullicino. Joe Falzon is a serious man, and has no agenda other than the truth. The thing about Joe Falzon is his determination to point his finger at the MEPA chairman, a person that is more than just close to George Pullicino… this guy’s a true buddy of Pullicino’s. And in this country, the chairman of MEPA has always been a political appointee.
Which brings us to the tent structure at Ta’ Qali and Joe Falzon’s comments. Joe Falzon had this to say about Ta’ Qali: “The chairman should limit himself to the monitoring of the process. He has every right to ask MEPA officials to explain why an application has been left pending for months. This is commendable. What I don’t agree with is that the chairman delves in the merits of the case.
“Imagine a MEPA employee hearing the chairman speaking to developers in a meeting. He could well think that everything he says is an order, which should be followed. This is very dangerous.”
It is an interesting comment which goes to show to what lengths Mr Chairman is out of line. Any further comment is superfluous.
One of the organisations representing hunters has said it will return to the streets if the government does not give in to their demands.
It is perhaps pertinent to remind readers what hunters’ protests in Malta are renowned for. They were typified by a number of colourful incidents, including the intimidation of individuals who worked for the environment department, and the forgotten former PN junior minister of environment Stanley Zammit.
Some of my friends lived in permanent fear that their homes would be attacked. Many decided to stop voicing their views about hunting. Bullying works you know. And hunters are not exactly a gentle breed. Apart from the unrecorded acts of brutal vandalism on temples, street roundabouts and roadsides, Malta in the mid-nineties was besieged by the arrogance and violence of hunters.
Stanley Zammit was specifically the hate figure of hunters. He was abandoned by his Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami because when it came to votes, Stanley, a quiet well-meaning man, was expendable.
When hunters gathered around his house and barricaded him, the signs of solidarity from his colleagues were conspicuous for their absence. Throughout all my meetings with hunters’ representatives, nobody ever showed any remorse for Stanley. They would always remind their peers: “See what we did to Stanley, we destroyed him.”
Stanley Zammit was not re-elected in 1996. He is a happier man today.
The hunters never blame themselves. Some of their moderate leaders such as Saviour Buttigieg, know that their image is tarnished by the excesses of some of the hunters, most especially the sea hunters, the worst offenders of all.
As they talked to the press, Buttigieg tried desperately to portray an image of importance only to be hijacked by one member who lugged the microphone and declared that like his father, and grandfather, he would hunt forever. Another, a sea hunter, urged his compatriots to brave the sea and not to be afraid of the police.
When the PN lost the election to Labour in 1996, the hunters were the first to celebrate. The Labour party had taken full advantage of the PN’s pale green agenda. The hunters jumped on their trucks and four-wheel drives, dressed up in their camouflage fatigues like Guatemalan paramilitaries and big game hunters, and screamed their heads off filling the air with expletives.
In their most recent press conference, the hunters hit out at BirdLife with a vengeance that is so typical of the past. In doing so, they once again have encouraged hunters and trappers to treat any BirdLife members with contempt, raising the temperature with people they know are only too keen to express their views in a physical and unacceptable way.
It is an understatement of course. They have no one to blame but themselves for having turned a noble pastime into a hobby that brings together trigger-happy enthusiasts with a few dedicated, law-abiding hunters.
They cannot go on blaming the blues, the reds, the greens, BirdLife or the press. Today we are in Europe, and in Europe there is no room for cowboys who flout the law and think that their country is a continent and birds made for one simple thing – to be shot, stuffed and decimated. Two years after accession, Malta is calling out for compliance. The day will come when we will roam the countryside free of hunters and trappers. You can postpone change but never stop it.
|
