David Darmanin
A former MCAST lecturer who was removed from his post for reasons unknown to him, has written to MCAST Principal Maurice Grech to question whether his dismissal was due to his “refusal to invent students’ marks”.
The letter, copied to the entire MCAST board, the education minister and also the Prime Minister, reached this newspaper after it revealed the MCAST administration had doctored exam results when it lost the original assignments.
Gervais Marcel Chishahayo, who taught at MCAST’s Institute of Business and Commerce (IBAC), wrote to Grech to answer to allegations of not always having corrected his students’ assignments.
“Allegations that I did not always correct student’s assignments are obviously an overstatement simply made to put me in bad light. I set deadlines to submit assignments and I do not accept or correct late assignments. This is common practice for it is unfair on students who hand in their assignments on time.”
Grech also alleged that IBAC management had found students on their own during Chishahayo’s lessons. But Chishahayo doesn’t mince his words in his reply.
“Who is IBAC management?” he asked. “Is it one person (IBAC deputy director Mr Josef Buttigieg) who has been persecuting me with impunity for the last five years because of my refusal to invent students’ marks after a whole class’s assignments went missing while in his custody?”
MCAST staff and officials wrote reference letters praising Chishahayo’s professionalism and work ethic. A former colleague pointed out that while Chishahayo, who is black, maintained a positive and professional relationship with his colleagues, he was often the victim of snide racist remarks aimed at him.

Two lecturers from the five that teach Applied Sciences at MCAST have resigned in solidarity with former lecturer Gervais Marcel Chishahayo, who was sacked for reasons still unknown to him.
Besides sending a clear message to education authorities that certain lecturers will not tolerate the antics of the MCAST management, the move has left the Applied Sciences course in the first term limping, since the three posts still remain vacant.
Chishahayo’s dismissal has been characterised by both allegations against him from some of his colleagues, and shows of solidarity by students, fellow lecturers, former colleagues and the director of one of the MCAST institutes he was last posted at.
As far as he is concerned, questions he forwarded to MCAST management asking why he was dismissed were only answered with a note from the Education Division informing the PhD candidate that he would be transferred to a government area secondary as of this year.
Contacted by MaltaToday, Chishahayo declined to elaborate on the details pertaining to the story. “I do not wish to make any comments to avoid further victimisation because I am convinced that the people who masterminded my ordeal at MCAST are wicked and would continue to harass me,” he said.
MCAST Principal Maurice Grech claims that MCAST never dismissed nor transferred Chishahayo, as he was placed there on the Education Division’s secondment. “MCAST decided that, in the best interests of the College and all concerned considering the circumstances and dynamics which had developed, he should no longer remain seconded with the College but that he should return to his permanent employment with the Education Division,” Grech told this newspaper.
He did not mention what these circumstances were.
In a letter sent to Chishahayo by Grech himself after his dismissal, it is said that in three separate occasions in 2007, Deputy Principal Anthony Saliba had met the lecturer with regards to “the difficulties students were allegedly facing during Computer Advanced and Intermediate lectures.”
In a reply he penned to Grech, copied to Education Minister Dolores Cristina, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and the entire MCAST board, Chishahayo said: “I was never informed of reports to the MCAST Central Management about students facing difficulties during my lectures.”
Following the accusations, all Applied Science students and those studying first-year Beauty Therapy, wrote letters to petition for the reversal of MCAST’s decision to get rid of the lecturer. “We find no reason why he should be removed from the course,” one letter said. “He has also been providing us support in our Work Placement in various companies and he has been one of our most dedicated and caring teachers,” another class noted.
“Even though Mr Chishahayo does not teach us,” another petition reads, “he has been actively involved in our preparation of the Applied Science Symposium and we have learnt to appreciate his interest in our studies and wellbeing on the course.”
In his letter to the lecturer, MCAST principal Grech further draws the attention of Chishahayo that: “On 14 December 2007, Ms (Yvonne) Pulis (MCAST’s Institute of Business and Commerce Director) reported to Mr Anthony Saliba that some members of her staff were alleging that you recorded them in the staff room.”
The former lecturer protests on this note: “I categorically denied all the allegations in the strongest possible terms and I requested him (MCAST chief administrative officer Emmanuel Attard) to arrange a face-to-face confrontation with the ones presenting such allegations and to give me the opportunity to be heard and make my case but this was denied to me and has been denied to me to this date. Instead, I only later learnt that secret boards of inquiry had taken place, but I was never called in to defend myself and give my own version of facts before this board.”

Unfair hearing
Regardless of his denial, which MCAST duly acknowledged, two boards of inquiry were set up. The first board was chaired by legal counsel Andrew Borg Cardona and composed of Emmanuel Attard and Anthony Saliba. Although seven lecturers were brought in to give their testimony, Chishahayo was never called in to give his testimony.
“Why didn’t MCAST and their lawyer (Andrew Borg Cardona) invite me to send my own lawyer or a Union representative to be present at these boards of enquiry?” Chishahayo asked Grech.
“If seven academic staff members were called to give their testimony, why didn’t they invite me and allow me to indicate my own witnesses to testify? Does this mean that all witnesses testified against me?
“In fact a number of them have written to declare that their statements were never read to them for verification and signature.”
The second board of inquiry consisted again of Anthony Saliba, who was chairing the board this time, Registrar Ray Farrugia and Deputy Director of the Institute of ICT Krassimir Andreinski. The board’s main task was to investigate the allegations made by students regarding Chishahayo’s lecturing duties, Grech wrote, “and the way you were carrying out such responsibilities.”
But again, MCAST never called in Chishahayo to hear his version of facts, nor did it inform him that the board had been set up.
Upon hearing corridor rumours of such boards being set up, Chishahayo contacted his lawyer, who in turn wrote to Grech demanding that he provides him with copies of all documentation and evidence allegedly gathered by the boards of inquiry. Moreover, he demanded a copy of his client’s personal file with MCAST.
“I am also stunned by the fact that my client was not given the opportunity to give his version of facts in front of the Boards of Inquiry,” the lawyer wrote.
A reply was sent by Borg Cardona, who assured Chishahayo’s lawyer that MCAST will make available all relevant documentation in sufficient time. “His case, as already intimated to him, will be heard by a Disciplinary Board in due course, during which process the obligation to give your client a fair hearing will be amply satisfied and you will no longer need to feel stunned that he was not given an opportunity to state his case.”
Astonishingly, within less than a week Grech wrote to the Education Division to inform them that “the services of Mr Chishahayo are no longer required at the College. Therefore he will be reverting to the Education Division as from 1 September 2008.”
Commenting about the matter to this newspaper, Grech said: “The decision that Mr Chishahayo returns to the Education Division was not a result of the serious allegations made regarding Mr Chishahayo’s behaviour in late 2007. Both boards of Inquiry concluded that the circumstances were such that disciplinary measures and proceedings should be instituted against Mr Chishahayo. The Boards of Inquiry did not interview Mr Chishahayo, and nor were they required to, since an employee should not, generally speaking, be placed in a situation where he would be constrained to reveal his defence if the matter proceeds to a disciplinary stage. Mr Chishahayo, as would be the case for every employee who may be subject to disciplinary proceedings, would have had the fullest opportunity to hear the case being made against him, and to make his own case, when the appropriate disciplinary proceedings were commenced. The foregoing is the context within which it was confirmed to Mr Chishahayo’s lawyer that he would, obviously, be given a fair hearing.”