Those against Konrad Mizzi

The evil that a man does lives with him. A few years back, the Panamagate scandal was on everybody’s mind – everyone spoke about it with many, publicly or privately, declaring their disgust.

T here was local and international condemnation. Konrad Mizzi was the only EU Minister mentioned in the Panama Papers. However, for Joseph Muscat, “Mizzi did nothing wrong”.

It was not only the man in the street that expressed a negative opinion against Panamagate and particularly against Konrad Mizzi. Alfred Sant, ex-PL leader, declared that, “Konrad Mizzi should resign”. Evarist Bartolo, Minister for Education, and Godfrey Farrugia, ex-Minister and ex-PL whip who resigned from the Labour Party in 2017 because, “although Labour kept its name, it lost its soul”, both declared publicly, “If I were Konrad Mizzi, I would resign”. They are not alone.

Leo Brincat and Panamagate

Three years ago, ex-Minister Leo Brincat – nominated by Joseph Muscat for the position of member of the European Court of Auditors – appeared before the European Parliament’s Parliamentary Committee for Budgetary Control to be grilled before being appointed. Amongst other things, the Committee asked Leo Brincat regarding his position in respect of the Panamagate scandal where, amongst others, his colleague Konrad Mizzi was mentioned.

‘My hands were tied’ Brincat

Leo Brincat declared that for politically exposed persons, ethics were as important as legality or illegality. He emphasised that he was in Konrad Mizzi’s position and mentioned in the Panama Papers, he would have resigned or suspended himself from the Labour Parliamentary group until he cleared himself legally and ethically. That is what Konrad Mizzi should have done and not leave his fate in Muscat’s hands who defended him and kept him as Minister.

Brincat added that when revelations about Konrad Mizzi and his Panama company started, he (Brincat) considered resigning but felt he would only be a voice in the wilderness. He therefore decided to keep his post as Minister and try convincing internally. He did not succeed in doing so although other Ministers also declared that if they were in Konrad Mizzi’s position they would resign.

Helena Dalli and Panamagate

Helena Dalli was nominated by Joseph Muscat, in her case for the position of European Commissioner. Three weeks ago she faced grilling by Members of the European Parliament. Dalli was questioned about the Panamagate scandal and asked whether she agrees with Konrad Mizzi’s actions and his attitude after the publication of the Panama Papers. She disassociated herself from the way the scandal was handled by her Government saying, “No, I do not agree. I would have acted totally different(ly).” This means that if she was Konrad Mizzi or Joseph Muscat she would not have acted the way they did.

In her declaration Helena Dalli did not say what she would have done totally different although she emphasised she was in favour of the rule of law, good governance and transparency. If she was Prime Minister instead of Muscat, would she have made Konrad Mizzi resign? Or, if she was in Mizzi’s position after the Panama Papers’ revelations would she have resigned? Helena Dalli still has ample time to clarify and substantiate her declaration.

Between words and actions

Both Evarist Bartolo and Godfrey Farrugia declared publicly that if they were in Konrad Mizzi’s position they would have resigned. Leo Brincat told the European Parliament Committee that he would have left and, in the circumstances, he considered resigning if he were in Mizzi’s position. Helena Dalli also told the European Parliament Committee that she did not agree and she would have acted differently. This is not enough.

When they were voting on the motion of no confidence in Konrad Mizzi, Minister Bartolo and ex-Ministers Farrugia, Brincat and Dalli should have remembered the Chinese proverb once referred to by Sai Mizzi that,

“the important is what one does not what one says”. Words are empty when actions taken are the opposite. Principles are distinguished through actions and not through words. Actions speak louder than words.

I understand that during the motion of no confidence in Konrad Mizzi, the Labour Members of Parliament could have felt they had their hands tied as Joseph Muscat did not allow a free vote for them. For Muscat the Panamagate scandal was not a matter of conscience and everyone had to follow the undisputed line of the Party.

This could have been the reason why the four members of parliament followed the direction of the Labour whip and voted against the motion. They imagined they would have been suspended from the parliamentary group had they voted differently. The four of them showed they could vote against their conscience when so instructed. Between the parliamentary seat and their conscience, they betrayed their principles and voted for the seat.

On their part, Leo Brincat and Helena Dalli in their declarations to the European Parliament Committees felt – probably for the first time in their political life – that their hands were not tied (as they could have been in the no confidence vote) and had no direct order from above. Because they felt themselves free, Brincat and Dalli expressed themselves according to their conscience. Their declarations indirectly condemned Konrad Mizzi for not resigning and Joseph Muscat for not taking the necessary actions.

Mizzi’s position

When asked for his comments regarding Helena Dalli’s declaration, almost three years after it was revealed that Konrad Mizzi opened a secret company in Panama, Mizzi declared that, in hindsight, it would have been better had he not done what he did. He added that, when judging the people’s reactions, he should have never opened that structure. What would he have said if the people reacted differently?

If Mizzi really believes what he says, he still has time to remedy the situation. He still enjoys Muscat’s impunity and is still a Cabinet Minister; therefore he can resign immediately. Only in this way can his words be taken seriously.

Muscat’s position

Helena Dalli’s public declaration meant that even Joseph Muscat acted wrongly. When asked for his comments about Dalli’s declaration to the MEPs, Muscat replied that if we are given the opportunity to go back in time, each one of us could sometimes act differently.

Muscat still has time to remedy the situation. He need not go back in time to do something different from what he did or did not do. He is still Prime Minister and can therefore still make Konrad Mizzi resign. If he still does not act, his comment would be superfluous and our country’s reputation keeps going down. Muscat should realise that defending evil is evil.