Edward Scicluna has his own rules. That’s what he told the country, as everybody wanted to see the back of him.
Even Prime Minister Robert Abela demanded his resignation. Everyone knew Scicluna was a deadweight, pulling the country down into the squalid swamp he inhabits. But Scicluna hung on in there, defiant and arrogant beyond belief.
Nobody needed to be reminded that Scicluna has his own rules – the rules of the pretentiously entitled, the rapaciously greedy, and the shockingly shameless.
The court decided there was enough reason to charge Scicluna with fraud and misappropriation in the biggest heist in Malta’s history – a €4 billion international scandal planned, executed, and enabled by Labour’s top brass. Scicluna now faces a criminal trial.
Anybody with an ounce of decency would realise it’s time to go. Not Scicluna. He expected to stay on as Malta’s Central Bank Governor to continue to sit on the governing council of the European Central Bank and keep his seat on the board of the Malta Financial Services Authority.
Why? Because avarice drives him. His rabid pursuit of cash blinds him to everything else. He’s shown time and time again that only money matters to him, humiliating himself and destroying his own reputation.
He testified under oath at the Daphne Caruana Galizia inquiry that he supported Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri simply because he didn’t want to lose his position.
He knew what he was doing was wrong, and he knew he should have voted against it, but he chose not to.
“I left a €100,000 job as an MEP and my comfort zone. Why should I resign?”, he told the incredulous inquiry panel. “It was either vote in favour or resign”.
The man has no pride, no shame.
Now, his uncontrollable greed is leading him to humiliate himself further. Sadly, he’s also humiliating his party, his prime minister and the entire country.
Robert Abela tried the gentle approach first, saying: “I know Prof Scicluna has a lot of integrity; I know how hard he worked for the country and how he always put the national interest first. I think he can arrive at the right decision”.
But just in case, he told Scicluna what the right decision was: “The correct decision for the Central Bank Governor is apparent in the example set out by the former Deputy Prime Minister. I believe good sense will prevail. I believe the national interest will prevail.”
But only Scicluna’s interest prevailed. He openly defied the prime minister. In a self-serving Whatsapp message, he said: “Friends, they are leading us where they want to. EU rules are clear for every European Governor – they’re asked to resign only if found guilty of a crime. With all due respect, I’m not going to bow to Bernard Grech’s pressure”.
The pressure wasn’t coming from Grech alone. It was coming from the prime minister and the entire country. But Scicluna wouldn’t flinch.
As he finally walked out of court, he was asked whether he would resign. He replied: “I have already answered that question… The EU Treaty protects me… from those very kinds of pressure.” Then he quickly escaped into a Central Bank van protected by Central Bank employees.
Isn’t that an abuse of his power, too? With €700,000 in bank deposits, €150,000 in government bonds and a €138,000 pay packet, surely Scicluna could afford to pay for his own taxi home.
Abela should have known Scicluna wouldn’t go quietly. Scicluna had already humiliated Abela before. When Abela asked him to stand down as finance minister so Clyde Caruana could take over, Scicluna refused.
He insisted he would only step down once he was sure he would become Central Bank governor with a higher financial package.
Abela was forced to remove former Labour Party president Mario Vella from his post months before his term was up to make way for Scicluna. Abela had to wait several months for the European Central Bank to give its approval for Scicluna’s appointment.
Scicluna boosted the remuneration for the Central Bank governor as he waited to take that post. By the time the European Central Bank approval was received, Scicluna was ready to step into the post with even better remuneration.
Abela shouldn’t have been surprised that Scicluna was humiliating him publicly. After having deviously hiked up his own salary and forced the prime minister to delay his cabinet reshuffle, he wasn’t going to think twice about embarrassing Abela one more time.
He wasn’t giving up his lucrative financial package without a fight. That’s all that matters to Scicluna.
Finally, even Abela lost his patience with him. “A decision needed to be taken today, and indeed it has,” Abela told journalists. “Tomorrow a notice will be issued in the Government Gazette.”
Abela was removing Scicluna from his position on the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA). More importantly, he was doing it publicly. The message to Scicluna couldn’t be clearer.
Abela expected Scicluna to resign as Central Bank governor. “Failing that, naturally, a decision will have to be taken. The cabinet is going to meet next Tuesday (today),” Abela said.
Scicluna ignored Abela’s threats. He steadfastly refused to comply with his demand.
Despite his removal from the MFSA, Scicluna didn’t budge, hanging to his governor’s seat by his finger nails.
Scicluna belongs in the same political trash heap as former minister Konrad Mizzi.
Mizzi, too, openly defied Robert Abela. When Abela demanded Mizzi’s resignation from parliament after more of his rotten deals were exposed, Mizzi refused. He publicly announced, “I don’t agree that I should resign over allegations and speculations pushed by the Labour Party’s adversaries”.
That’s the exact narrative Scicluna is now brandishing. “I stand tall,” Mizzi said, “and I have nothing to apologise for”. That did not age well.
Abela got tired of Mizzi’s defiance. He got Labour’s executive to kick him out. Despite 71 out of 73 Labour executive members voting against Mizzi, he held on to his parliamentary seat to become eligible for an MP’s pension. He announced he’d remain MP and that his loyalty to Labour was unwavering.
This is Labour’s legacy – a bunch of self-interested, entitled money grabbers who would rather humiliate their leader, their party, their country and themselves before they relinquish a single euro of their ill-gotten earnings.
Two points:
1. Scicluna says “they’re asked to resign only if found guilty of a crime.”
They (Governors) are also asked to resign if rhey no longer fulfil the conditions required for the performance of their duties. The Court of Appealdecided there was enough reason to charge Scicluna with fraud and misappropriation. He is sufficient indication of serious misconduct’
2. “When Abela asked [Scicluna] to stand down as finance minister … Scicluna refused.”
A minister cannot refuse to quit. The Prime Minister hires and fires. If the Prime Minister relented, he must have been blackmailed or had to compromise by giving Scicluna a job worth twice as much as the Prime Minister’s.
I think that the issue here is not only self-entitlement, but also a matter of what each one of them knows about each and every other one of their colleagues and which, if they had to open their mouths freely, could lead to Malta’s equivalent of Palermo’s maxi-processo. This has been said before.
Malta is still waiting for its Tomaso Buscetta who would expose all the crimes and wrong doings of the commissione and the bosses of their mafia.
May I add, that many comments and FB political influencers have raised the possibility of cabinet sacking Ego(nom)ist Edward Scicluna on the grounds of misconduct.
I have reacted to this, saying that if the cabinet does so, they would be admitting a crime, call it misconduct, which they politically collectively carried out with Scicluna, and for which they carry collective responsibility and therefore they would need to resign their own positions at the same time that they demand the removal of Scicluna. So they will not demand his removal on that basis, and The Sunday Times of Malta of last Sunday confirmed that cabinet may be considering sacking Scicluna on the grounds that he no longer fulfills the conditions required for his duties.
So I actually challenge the Cabinet to sack Scicluna on the grounds of misconduct, and I do so after having read the judgement in the case of the Latvian Governor whose name I will not try to spell, but where it is clear that an actual judgement of wrong doing was not necessary. In that case, the ECB – which together with the Latvian Governor sued the Latvian Authorities – even offered to waive it’s right to see the criminal file of the Latvian proceedings against the Governor – which the Latvian authorities insisted was confidential as investigations were under way – and the judgement was delivered after the Latvian government offered, but failed to, present in time documents, other than the criminal file, with sufficient evidence to support the sacking on the basis of misconduct.
In Scicluna’s case, the cabinet could deliver the magisterial inquiry and the magistrates court proceedings so far, all of which are now part of a public process.
Just for correctness sake, 400 million = 0.4 Billion not 4 Billion. Otherwise, great article. Thanks.
Thank you for your input. €4 billion was the deal’s total value (€400 million is what was paid out). The article is correct.
Maybe with a ‘golden handshake’ Robert will get rid of him
referred to central bank governor is not being accused to a dereliction of duty committed in one’s present post, but one held in recent past. for the claims, rightfully asserted by prof cassar’s write up, be ‘executable’, cbm governor’s role criteria need to be re-written; the faux pas took place @ the person’s appointment stage.
GAHAN JIVVOTALOM, LILU JAGHTUH IL-FRAK
TAL-HOBZ U HUMA JIEHDU L-MILLJUNI TAL-EWROS.
Scicluna has to be handled with kids gloves the same way as the film commissioner because they both have too much inside information re Muscat’s dealings and if they start to talk this government WILL fall. Simple as that!
Kevin,
Since Scicluna is still getting paid then it is only right that WHEN found guilty he should legally be bound to return all wages (both as a Minister of Finance and Governer of bank) to us as he keeps insisting on presumption of innocence.
I mention as a Minister of Finance because I assume that one of his roles was to take care of our money
.Now the big question is DID HE take care of our money?????
I fully agree that Scicluna should have tendered his resignation as a gentleman in the public interest . To resort to legalities does not do good for his reputation. The precedent of the former Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia may not be entirely applicable. Taking into consideration the full saga of the Government’s deal with Vitals/Stewart Health Care I venture to suggest that both Scicluna and the Prime Minister (who nominated him) were already aware that there were some actions or inactions for which the Minister of Finance (Scicluna) would have to account for at some future date. There may have already been some undisclosed intention to avail oneself of the immunities conferred by the Office of Governor at the time of Scicluna’s nomination..