‘The big one’ in the oil scandal

I am of course a news junkie, so this week I listened to Inspector Angelo Gafà, now in the Malta Security Service, answering questions in the house committee in parliament about his investigation time line into the oil scandal revealed by MaltaToday. 

I really do not have any more patience or time to try to find a description for Angelo Gafà, who some consider as the greatest investigator this planet has ever seen. I do not share that enthusiasm or view.

I think that he is an over-zealous investigator who does not seek the truth first, but the culprit.

Now that is free speech, which has nothing to do with inventing selective stories about private affairs or relaying private affairs of people who happen to be red but not blue.

Gafà proved beyond any doubt that he had failed to follow or investigate clear leads and evidence in the whole affair.

I will list a few.

Oil trader George Farrugia was promised a pardon on then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s insistence, on condition that he does not withhold anything from the truth.

He said in an internet chat that the ‘dragon liked the diamond’ and Gafà simply accepted Farrugia’s assertion that the ‘dragon’ was his wife and the diamond was for his wife.

Gafà did not ask Farrugia’s wife (who by the way, was an ex-employee of the Mizzi organisation who worked with Lawrence Gonzi). Neither did he ask to see the diamond.

When Gafà was asked whether he had questioned Austin Gatt about meetings with George Farrugia, I understood that he did not ask him. Instead we were told that this was not an interrogation but an interview with Gatt.

When he was asked if he had called for Alex Tranter, then CEO at energy corporation EneMalta, he said no.

No, Gafà said rather emphatically, even though he should have known that Tranter was given a present by George Farrugia, worth €700, from Azzopardi Jewellers. Farrugia also donated €300 to Tranter’s wife for a dance spectacular. Even so he gave the impression that Tranter was really irrelevant to the case.

This was not all. 

When asked whether he asked George Farrugia about his reference in an email chat with a top oil company executive about the "big one", Gafà answered he did not.

This is remarkable.

Now it is clear that Gafà did not investigate these very important leads, which is a very important point that everyone is simply missing.

Jason Azzopardi and Beppe Fenech Adami will not be raising these points.

The day after I was interviewed (not interrogated by the way) by Gafà, Gafà called in Frank Sammut and Tancred Tabone: a good seven days passed before Angelo Gafà called in George Farrugia.

What happened next?

George Farrugia admits that he met Frank Sammut before he was questioned by the police, and after. Farrugia did not meet Tancred Tabone.

Now, Gafà does not even think that these meetings could have led Farrugia and Sammut to agree about how to deal with questions.

Like any other overzealous investigator, Gafà is not primarily interested in the truth, but in nailing someone.

Now that is a fair comment again, much fairer than the malicious gossip about who sleeps with whom – applicable only if your DNA is not PN.

Back to George Farrugia.

He told the PAC meeting that he met Frank Sammut when Sammut was with his partner.  Who this partner was, no one seems to know.

Did Gafà ask George Farrugia what he told Frank Sammut?

Did he ask Frank Sammut what George Farrugia asked of him?

In the house committee hearing, Jason Azzopardi asked Gafà if he found any evidence that any minister, including Lawrence Gonzi, was involved in the scandal.

The obvious answer to that question could have been predictable.

The booming Opus Dei-like voice of Jason Azzopardi in the committee sounded more austere and incredulous if you ask me.

The real question should have been whether George Farrugia was acquainted with Gonzi. They both had said they did not know each other, until MaltaToday revealed that George Farrugia’s wife knew Lawrence Gonzi and worked for him. And until a picture of Farrugia and Gonzi together in the winter of 2012 was picked from In-Nazzjon.

It does not mean that Gonzi was in any way remotely connected to the kickbacks organised by George Farrugia. But it did prove that Farrugia and Gonzi were economical with the truth.

Jason Azzopardi should have also asked about some hard evidence. For example he should have asked Gafà whether he took the legal steps to ask Swiss banks for details of deposits into the current accounts of those being investigated.

There is another big problem here.

It is obvious, and there is plenty of evidence for this, that the police did not carry out a proper investigation. I will go one step further and say that they f***ed up big time. They left huge, gaping holes in the whole investigation.

It is also very clear that the members of the two political parties who make up the House committee, have starkly different agendas: one has the agenda of proving that the political class of the time was responsible, and the other the agenda of proving that they were not.

It is truly so pathetic.

Perhaps they should consider leaving the questioning to journalists, though I have to admit that the questions by Owen Bonnici are closer to what I would have asked.

That, I am afraid, is the oil scandal for you. Or the botched oil scandal.

-

And talking about Owen Bonnici, it has to be said that the time has come to start talking of what is, or is not, important to the news. Bonnici has separated from his wife. An unfortunate happening. But so has Simon Busuttil, and so many others.

What is the relevance of this if it does not have an implication on one’s office!

If we are to start addressing the private affairs of people, then we should be willing to wear protective gear for the bile that would follow.

This country deserves better.

I have no doubt that the level of malicious gossip can exist on both sides, but as things stand today we also know that the weather vane is clearly pointing in one direction. And the PN should not be proud of this. 

We cannot stop the tide, the immensity of the social media, but even the social media is waking up to the malicious commentary and blocking it.

What strikes me as bizarre is that in our business of reportage and opinion writing we are up against a very tough press law and a meek and ineffective press club headed by a marketing executive.

The time has come to control the web troll and the future web trolls as in other countries with a far freer press than ours. This has nothing to do with curbing freedom of speech or free speech, but to fight malicious intent and the clear mission to promote hate.

It is the malicious intent and the hate-mongering that need to be addressed.

If not addressed, the situation will lead to a knee-jerk reaction from those under siege to develop the same weaponry.

Those who were threatened with nuclear warfare addressed the imbalance by building similar weapons.

It has to be stopped now and the politicians who entertain this malign and hurtful invective must dissociate now from the river of bile.