The Egrant conspiracy

The torpor of summer’s hot days was broken by the revelation of the conclusions of Magistrate Aaron Bugeja on the claims that Egrant, the third account in Panama belonged to Michelle Muscat, wife of Prime Minister Muscat.

The magistrate found, after a long investigation, that this claim could not be substantiated. The conclusion, after 15 months of investigation, sent the government into a paroxysm of immense relief, perfectly understandable in the case of the first family after all the innuendos and threats of the past months.

There are still details to be filled in. I believe there is such a thing called ‘peer review’ which is an analysis at the level of the magistrate by his counterparts who analyse his findings, point out any eventual shortcomings or confirm his conclusions.

There are still three or four other inquiries being conducted by other magistrates largely about the same subject. And of course the Bugeja inquiry opens the door to many consequent investigations mostly of a criminal nature.

The Muscat government seems to believe that the Bugeja conclusions cover all components of the government, granting them all automatic absolution. It does nothing of the sort. The most it says is that Magistrate Bugeja has not been able to find conclusive proof that Egrant belonged to Michelle Muscat.

That is why the full details of the investigation are so important. The magistrate did his very best but in the end he had to admit he had found no conclusive proof linking Egrant to Muscat.

Most of the rest is incidental, but a terribly serious incidental.

The impression many of us got before the conclusions were made public was that at base there was an allegation by people familiar with Pilatus Bank but that the many subsequent events – from the killing of Daphne Caruana Galizia, to the midnight visit to the bank by its owner, to the decision by Maria Efimova, the main whistleblower, to leave Malta had rendered the magistrate’s task of finding the proof an impossible task.

But the details revealed this past week have raised a very different spectre – that this was something else, a conspiracy to cause trouble and inflame minds on the eve of a general election. The timing thus was important. It was an elaborate plot, crafted with intelligence, with plausible markers laid out along the way which got many people believing it and subscribing to it.

So there was nothing haphazard about it. It was made to seem plausible and was taken on board by many, especially those in Opposition who were predisposed to believe the worst of Muscat and his government.

The first person to break this story was Daphne Caruana Galizia. Now I know Daphne and, though possibly biased, I still cannot believe she launched a story she knew was fake. Was she duped? Her whole being predisposed her to believe the story she was told by Maria Efimova (and by another person who has remained unnamed all through). And she may have skimped on checking out the story or believed it on the credibility of the people surrounding her.

Then there was Simon Busuttil who never seems to have doubted the story’s credibility. He made it a central plank of his electoral appeal. In the light of the Bugeja conclusions there were huge gaps in the Efimova/Daphne narrative but Busuttil glossed over any doubts (if any were made by those around him) and harangued the crowds as if the Egrant claim was Gospel truth.

Busuttil provided the political basis to the story and made it credible to the masses. People who would otherwise not believe Daphne, believed the story because of him. It seems incredible that he does not seem to have doubted once. Or does this mean he had absolute faith in Daphne and all she wrote? Or was he reassured by the shady people around him that the story was absolutely true?

I am assuming Busuttil believed the story because if he knew otherwise his responsibility is awesome, even worse than Eddie and Guido leading the PN masses to the rout at Tal-Barrani.

Whether he believed the story or whether he knew it to be fake, Busuttil emerges from all this as a very bad kind of leader. A leader without prudence, foresight and prone to rhetorical overdrive. He does have many good qualities but the people of Malta saw through him last year and rejected him.

Then there is us, the media. As the leader in Tuesday’s issue of the sister paper said: “There are lessons to be learnt by the media as well. The Egrant story has very clearly hurt the reputation of Maltese media houses, this one in- cluded.

“It transpired that journalists were fed falsified documents and trusted untrustworthy sources. One would have to see whether the sources intentionally lied or whether they were duped as well.

“But this is not about finding a scapegoat. The media in Malta needs to exercise a much greater level of vigilance, especially with stories that are very hard, if not impossible to prove.” And there’s probably much more to say.

On Sunday, following the Prime Minister’s emotional press conference, Adrian Delia called one himself and demanded that Busuttil resigns from Parliament. That was a tactical mistake. He appeared to be, and was instantly attacked as being, Muscat’s stooge at the head of the Opposition. I am no supporter of his but he is more correct on this issue than Busuttil. The Nationalist Party needs to draw a line after Egrant and the leaders of the conspiracy.

But the way Delia did it has deepened the split in the party. Besides, as I see it, he has been left with the weakest of the PN backbenchers. As matters stand, there is nothing to stop the rebels from marching to San Anton and telling the President that the present Leader of the Opposition no longer enjoys the support of the majority on the Opposition’s benches and must therefore be replaced.

There have been all sorts of offers of mediation and talks, and Delia has thrown in some openings himself but Busuttil is still adamant and does not admit to any wrongdoing.

This is the future that awaits us. The conclusions of the Egrant inquiry open up many avenues for future investigations and this is very bad news for Malta as it brings the investigative services to grips with political persons. Unless huge prudence is exercised, we may enter the penumbra of political investigations and charges and all it entails. It is enough to see the dust raised by the preliminary investigations into Pierre Portelli’s role in handling the documents later proved to be fake to see what’s coming.

The line that Delia wanted to draw seems to have disappeared and along with it, Delia himself and the party as it is, may disappear too.