The "JS List"

An appreciation on the scrutiny of public figures and public parties.

Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, MP Evarist Bartolo had some serious – lets call them allegations – to make about the nationalist party and the considerations that are made for awarding of contracts by governments. You do not need to read between the lines to see the link between party financing and governmental decision making that is being alleged. Here is the news report from the two English dailies: 

From The Malta Independent : 

Speaking in parliament, Mr Bartolo said he has been receiving a number of letters full of lies. “The only thing that hurt me was a mention of my mother, who passed away seven years ago; but this intimidation will not stop me,” said Mr Bartolo. Referring to the Delimara power station extension, he pointed out that every company engaged in the project has been involved in a bribery/corruption case of some sort. He went on to say that the new plant at Delimara will generate large amounts of both solid and liquid waste.Mr Bartolo said corruption is still rife in Malta, and he mentioned a list, known in the PN as the “JS list”, which includes a list of contractors (including those who win public contracts) that provide financial contributions to the party.” 

 And from the Times: 

He [Evarist Bartolo] said the irregularities that took place in the process increased corruption. All international companies involved in the project were involved in corruption in other countries. These included BWSC, Brazilla and Lahmeyer International, the latter being blacklisted by the World Bank for refusing to cooperate in investigations of corruption cases that it was involved in. He asked whether Lahmeyer had been screened before being selected as Enemalta’s advisor. Mr Bartolo said that the PN had what he called “the JS list”, which included contractors who were given public contracts and then would, in turn, contribute financially to the PN coffers. 

Given the current general smutfest that is being engaged in with the excuse of “scrutiny of public individuals” (with a very subjective definition of who – in the public sphere but not on the public payroll – can or cannot be subjected to said scrutiny) it would be a pity were these allegations on the financial conduct of one of the main parties not to be followed up. Charles Cauchi (and his real persona) might once again take umbrage at my verbose exposure of the glaring inconsistencies in the choice of timing of the various scrutinies we have had until now. In most cases, situations that have been persisting for a long time (in criminal terms it would be a continuing offence) suddenly (and with no explanation) are subjected to “scrutiny”. For “scrutiny” read a sudden urge to probe into not just the subject under examination but also to fire ancillary spinoff barrages at persons not in the least involved in the acts and actions of the very public persons who should (rightly) be answerable for any actions that might have consequences on their public acts. 

Let’s simplify for the dumb and Charles Cauchi. I have no doubt that judges, magistrates, politicians and public officers should be answerable for their actions in private that might impinge on their public decision making. No doubt at all. That is why J’accuse was among the many who questioned a minister’s use of a private jet to fly to London to see a football match. A report, a carefully drafted article pointing out the inconsistency of the action with his public duties and a red light to the relevant authorities are not only warranted but necessary in such circumstances. Do note that a two week orgy of pandering to the voyeurist needs of today’s population is not an equal and proportionate measure that satisfies the need to ensure that the public officers’ ability to stand up to scrutiny has not been compromised. Smutfests are no solution unless the aim is not really the scrutiny and control of the public persona’s integrity but rather some personal revenge. 

J’accuse has absolutely no interest in the personal revenge aspect of the current bonfire of anger that is now being justified with the drawing of the curtains of public scrutiny. It’s a bit late for that. We may be accused by Charles Cauchi and others of still being on the “stool” but in actual fact once the debate has been opened on the necessity or otherwise of the scrutiny of public persons and their actions then we are more than entitled to enter the fray (so long as it is within the accepted parameters of justified scrutiny and how it should be done).

The private behaviour of public persons CAN impinge on their decision making – there is no doubt about that. Bloggers and journalists forming part of the fourth estate will tread very carefully when performing what can be described as their duty to present facts that could have such a consequence. The Berlusconi Incidents are the best example for this. It is one thing presenting the facts to the relevant authorities and querying those directly involved (preferably by a Commission established under the rule of law) and another stretching the story to paparazzi limit while going for the EP version of the events and presenting it to the baying voyeurist rabble. The service performed to the public by requesting the scrutiny within the appropriate fora (or forums if you prefer) can soon go all pete tong when such service is tainted by what can be perceived as personal vendettas, private interests of the journalists themselves and long lasting chips and rivalries. This gets worse when it becomes blatantly evident that such information as has been exposed has long been known but is only now being used because of whatever private reasons the exposer has. The public service element will then slip even further out of sight to most but the most fervent adulators and voyeuristas. 

Whether it is allegations of magisterial interests intertwining with political stakes and commercial investments or allegations on party interests (as well as that of individual party candidates) merging indiscriminately with that of commercial operators – all these allegations need to be treated within the limits of the law and under the impartial eye of the law. Either that or we are fanning the flames for the Revolution of the Voyeuristas who will attack the politicians with their smut magazines and silly gossip pages. I for one know which solution I prefer. 

There’s something called a “Permanent Commission against Corruption” Chapter 326 of the Laws of Malta. Here’s to hoping it gets busy. Fast. 

4. The functions of the Commission shall be: 

(a) to consider alleged or suspected corrupt practices committed by or with the participation of any person mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) and, where the Commission determines that there are sufficient grounds for holding an investigation, to investigate any such allegation or suspicion and to make a report thereon in accordance with article 11; 

(b) to investigate the conduct of any public officer, including any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, which in the opinion of the Commission may be corrupt or may be connected with or may be conducive to corrupt practices and to report thereon in accordance with article 11; 

(c) to investigate the conduct of any person who is or has been entrusted with, or has or has had functions relating to the administration of a partnership or other body in which the Government of Malta, or any one or more of any other authority of the Government, a local government authority, a statutory body, or a partnership as aforesaid or any combination thereof,has a controlling interest or over which it has effective control, where such conduct, in the opinion of the Commission may be corrupt or connected with or conducive to corrupt practices, and to report thereon in accordance with article 11; 

(d) to examine the practices and procedures of government departments, local government authorities, statutory bodies or other bodies referred to in paragraph (c) in order to facilitate the discovery of any corrupt practices and to recommend the revision of methods of work or procedures which may be conducive to corrupt practices, and to report thereon in accordance with article 11; and 

(e) to instruct, advise and assist any person, on his request, on ways in which corrupt practices may be eliminated, provided that such request may only be made by a person who has ministerial responsibility or who is entrusted with, or has functions relating to, the administration of a government department, local government authority, statutory body or other body referred to in paragraph (c). 

5. Except where the Commission acts on its own initiative in holding an investigation under this Act, such investigation may be held on the allegation made and subscribed on oath by any person. 

 

 

 

As for the Judiciary there is also the Commission for the Administration of Justice (set up under our Constitution article 101A(11)(f)) that has among its duties: 

to draw the attention of any judge or magistrate on any matter, in any court in which he sits, which may not be conducive to an efficient and proper functioning of such court, and to draw the attention of any judge or magistrate to any conduct which could affect the trust conferred by their appointment or to any failure on his part to abide by any code or codes of ethics relating to him;