Why is Abela choosing Muscat’s side?
On February 24, 2023, Mr Justice Franco Depasquale delivered a judgment in a case instituted by Adrian Delia five years prior. The judge found fraud in all stages of the concession deal awarded by the government to Vitals and Steward.
Mr Justice Depasquale found evidence of fraudulent intent and highlighted aspects of the deal as possibly criminal.
On October 23, 2023, the Court of Appeals, comprising Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, upheld the judgment delivered by the First Court but departed from Mr Justice Depasquale’s judgment by stating there was “collusion between Steward and high government officials or its agencies”.
Recent media reports indicate that Magistrate Gabriella Vella has concluded the magisterial inquiry into the Vitals deal, requested four years prior by the NGO Repubblika.
The inquiry and its conclusions have now been handed over to the attorney general who is to analyse its findings to decide whether to file criminal charges against people named in it.
The inquiry and its conclusions are not public but, judging by the reaction of Prime Minister Robert Abela and former prime minister Joseph Muscat, it does not make happy reading for them. Muscat is convinced that he will be criminally charged and Abela is singing from Muscat’s hymn book that the institutions are working against Labour… rather than Labour working against the institutions.
What was initially a fraud case is now officially a criminal matter. Media reports indicate that the inquiring magistrate has found evidence of crimes and money-laundering activities related to the Vitals deal and it is now up to other State institutions to follow up on her investigation.
Muscat, having read the writing on the wall several months ago on the consequences of his ventures, has been actively seeking judicial recourse to remove Magistrate Vella. Having been unsuccessful in this regard, he now chooses to attack the messenger of the consequences of his actions in the Vitals deal, with the active support of Abela who now conveniently chooses to ignore his mantra of letting the institutions work.
The inquiry’s findings and conclusions are not yet public. When they are, we will be in a better position to understand why the inquiring magistrate concluded that crimes were possibly committed in the Vitals deal. Until then, prudence and our faith in the courts should lead us to assume, as I have no doubt, that the magistrate did her work diligently, without fear or favour.
Abela begged to differ. Toeing the line of Muscat, the prime minister sowed doubts about the inquiry. Both want this battle to be fought in the political rather than judicial arena.
I am unsurprised that Muscat chose to come out the way he did. I am sure that he devised a defence strategy with his lawyers that includes not only the legal arguments that will be presented in court but also the public arguments that will be made to keep the public on his side.
However, I am both surprised and disappointed that Abela is assisting Muscat in his strategy.
Abela previously tried to distance his government from the hospital deal. When Mr Justice Depasquale delivered his judg ment in February of last year, the prime minister immediately took steps to annul the hospitals’ contract. The prime minister also clarified that his government would not be a party to the appeal.
Abela accepted that the Vitals deal was fraudulent and stated that steps were initiated to recover monies from Steward Health Care. With the fingers of justice pointing among others at Muscat, Abela is choosing a side. Muscat’s side.
Why did he change tact? Why is he ready to defend Muscat when he so readily threw Vitals, Steward and others under the bus? Questions are being asked as to why the prime minister is choosing to abandon the national interest in pursuit of Muscat’s interest. In this matter, the courts, four different judges, and a magistrate if you want, have proved once, twice and, now, it seemingly transpires three times, that Muscat was incapable of protecting the national interest.
Muscat could or should be charged with going against the national interest for personal gain. Why should the prime minister take a stand to defend, even by association, anyone accused of betraying the country? If Abela continues on this road, he will set a new low, possibly the lowest in Malta’s political history post-independence.
This is a time for reflection. A time for political maturity. A time for our State institutions to stand up and be counted. It will be a painful time. Politics in our country is tied to sentiments that run deep. This is unusual by European standards but not necessarily wrong.
The Maltese feel invested in their political system. That political system is now going to go on trial. We need now more than ever a prime minister who can chart through these stormy waters with gravitas and wisdom. His initial calls on this matter show he cannot do this.
If Abela defends Muscat, then he also defends Vitals, Steward and the companies against whom he is claiming damages.
Abela, as a prime minister, must choose wisely.
As head of the executive, Abela will have a role to play. But not now and not in this manner.
He should be saying less rather than more and showing that his one and only interest is the national interest.
“Toeing the line of Joseph Muscat, the prime minister sowed doubts about the inquiry
Mario de Marco is the Nationalist Party’s spokesperson on tourism.