Hospitals scandal: Joseph Muscat shifts blame from him and government to corruption by ‘third parties’

Former prime minister Joseph Muscat, on whose watch the Vitals Global Healthcare deal was struck and which was torn to shreds by the courts on Friday, is shifting culpability for the deal’s fraud and corruption from him and his government to “third parties”.

Muscat is taking to social media to make his statements on the court judgement that exposed multiple misdeeds on the part of his administration and its individual members, notably former ministers Chris Cardona and Konrad Mizzi, who have since slipped into the shadows.

On Friday, Muscat had attempted to shift the blame for the deal to his Cabinet as a whole, which he claimed had been continually involved in the process. Former cabinet member and veteran politician Evarist Bartolo this morning labelled Muscat’s comments as a “smokescreen”.

Muscat’s successor, Prime Minister Robert Abela, has also been busy shifting accountability for the debacle by claiming it all happened before his time, although he had served as legal consultant to the Office of the Prime Minister when it was under Muscat.

Commenting on Friday’s damning indictment from the courts, Muscat this morning brushed off responsibility, saying: “The references to fraud in the judgment in this civil case are against third parties and not against me or the government.”

Noting that the word ‘corruption’ did not surface in the court ruling, Muscat insisted the only reason the presiding judge rescinded the concessions in his ruling on Friday was because “in his opinion the concessionaires did not fulfil what was expected of them”.

Muscat elaborated further on his Cabinet’s involvement in the deal, saying the fact that the hospital concession has been discussed and related decisions had been taken by Cabinet was “not something new” and that such information had been included in the Auditor General’s report the court had referred to in its judgement.

He also insisted that “Cabinet has always had an established system of legal scrutiny of the decisions that are taken” and that the system had been employed when it came to the Vitals deal.

He also defended himself by noting his name had been mentioned only twice in yesterday’s judgement – when it ran through his testimony, and when the court quoted his testimony where he had acknowledged the concessionaires had not fulfilled everything expected of them.