Denial is not a strategy

A delegation from the EU Budgetary Control Committee visited Malta at the beginning of April to review and assess the use of EU funds. They met the Minister for European Funds, Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, and other officials who painted a “rather positive outlook of the situation”. But the EU Committee was less than convinced.

The Head of Delegation, Tomas Zdechovsky, said, “EU funds are for the Maltese citizens and businesses, and they must be used for them, not for a small circle of politicians”.

The delegation “concluded that there were still steps to take and measures to be implemented by the authorities to ensure that all issues are addressed”. The committee felt that “issues remain in relation to the functioning of the justice system, particularly in relation to the implementation of EU funds”.

The committee noted that the European Public Prosecutors’ Office (EPPO) has 17 active cases relating to Malta with an estimated damage of €235 million.  Latvia and Lithuania have cases with similar estimated damage, but they are three and five times bigger than Malta.

The committee noted that “it seemed that there are some issues with fraud with EU funds” in Malta, but which do not seem to be finalised by the judicial system adequately”. The committee discussed concrete cases of alleged fraud with government officials and warned that “we will follow up on them”.

The Head of Delegation said that “if the justice system does not function properly, then you cannot ensure transparent public procurement, you cannot ensure adequate appeal mechanisms”.

Prime Minister Robert Abela’s latest efforts to conceal his and his Cabinet’s assets did not go unnoticed.  “Concerns were also raised about the transparency of the assets of high-level politicians, which may lead to situations of conflicts of interest, as well as issues related to access to information for citizens or NGOs.”

“These are findings which we will need to follow up on in the future because we want to avoid the EU funds being captured or used by only a few privileged people who are close to the government”.

Zdechovsky was asked about what issues had raised the delegation’s concerns.  He referred to “The Vitals scandal, Golden Passports, Electrogas, the Marsa junction, customer fraud… we want to know what’s really going on”. He pointed out that in his own country, Czechia, politicians must resign when they are involved in a political scandal.

That damning press statement by the Head of Delegation on the conclusion of the CONT mission to Malta is all Labour’s fault. Abolishing the ministerial declaration of assets was bound to attract the attention of any delegation scrutinising the use of EU funds.

Abela’s concerted efforts to eliminate transparency could only raise suspicions about his real motivation, especially given that €235 million in EU funds is being scrutinised in 17 cases by the European public prosecutor’s office.

Malta’s failure to bring even a single case of corruption to conviction clearly raises serious doubts about the independence and effectiveness of the police force and the Attorney General’s office.

It was hardly a surprise that the delegation’s conclusions reflected those stark deficiencies. Every single one of the delegation’s comments was based on indisputable facts. But instead of accepting the committee’s conclusions and recommendations, Zrinzo Azzopardi attacked the committee, accusing it of reaching “positions (which) were pre-determined prior to the visit”.

Zrinzo Azzopardi issued a cringeworthy statement claiming that “all concerns were based on a series of misconceptions”.  According to him, it’s merely a misconception that Abela has scrapped the ministerial declaration of assets.

It’s just a misconception that the disbursement of €235 million in EU funds is under investigation by the European public prosecutor’s office, according to the minister. He insisted that it’s just a misconception that no case of political corruption has been successfully prosecuted in over a decade.

Even more embarrassing, Zrinzo Azzopardi scored his own homework, praising himself and claiming that “all concerns (of the committee) based on a series of misconceptions were thoroughly and satisfactorily addressed by government.”

He went on to attack the delegation, stating that “the ministry notes with concern that the subsequent public narrative does not reflect the substance or tone of the meeting”. Zrinzo Azzopardi interpreted the polite and cordial meetings with the CONT committee as acceptance of the rosy narrative he painted to the committee.

He completely misread the “substance or tone of the meeting”. Polite, respectful engagement does indicate agreement.

In the puerile infantilism that has come to characterise Labour’s reaction to any criticism, Zrinzo Azzopardi made entirely inappropriate snide remarks:  “It is evident that certain conclusions were drawn independently of the actual exchanges held in Malta, raising legitimate questions as to whether positions were pre-determined prior to the visit.”

For Labour, constructive dialogue means that any EU visiting committee should accept Labour’s version of events entirely and without question, even when the facts manifestly contradict Labour’s positive picture. Anything less than glowing praise for Labour from the committee must be denounced and condemned.

Labour thinks that EU committee members are as gullible as ONE’s loyal audience.  Zrinzo Azzopardi imagines that the EU committee has no other source of information beyond Labour’s ministerial propagandistic statements. Labour thinks it can browbeat EU institutions into submission with its insolence and cynicism.