It has just been reported that Joseph Muscat considered his invitation to Dr Mallia to resign as a matter of courtesy. The impression that the Joseph Muscat of 15.00 hrs today wants to give is that the Joseph Muscat of 21.00 hours (approximately) yesterday was not simply asking Dr Mallia to consider the possibility of resigning (after reading his homework) but rather that it was a case of handing him the rope to go hang himself.
Much of the Prime Minister’s reputation hangs on whether this latest interpretation that he gives of what went on between him and Mallia once the report was out is believable. Did Muscat really decide that Mallia had to go and give him an honourable way out or did he really hope that Mallia would get the hint and save him the trouble of having to sack him? In the end Muscat went ahead and sacked Mallia (with no resignation letter in sight) and appointed his replacement.
There is an interesting twist though. Someone else who has been collaborating closely with the Labour government is currently in court precisely on a similar matter as that with which Mallia was confronted. Muscat has worked closely with John Dalli who, as far as he (Dalli) is concerned, is still a Commissioner of the European Union. Dalli had problems understanding whether he was invited to resign or whether he was sacked during a historic meeting with former Commission President Barroso.
Muscat has had no qualms about working with the ex-Commissioner notwithstanding Dalli’s interpretation of events. This begs the question: When does Muscat think that an offer to resign is a matter of courtesy and when does he believe it is actually an indirect way to sack a person?
