PM cleared of ethical breach over driving licence scandal remarks

The Standards Commissioner has ruled that Prime Minister Robert Abela did not breach ethical guidelines in his comments regarding the 2023 driving licence racket scandal. However, the commissioner acknowledged that Abela’s remarks could be interpreted as a defence of clientelistic practices.

Momentum Chairperson Arnold Cassola had requested an investigation into Abela’s statements, citing a newspaper report in which the prime minister was quoted as defending the fast-tracking of driving test applicants as part of the political system.

“That is the way the political system works,” Abela had told journalists. “If anyone is saying this should not apply for this country, I disagree.” He also insisted that his government extended assistance to all, including Opposition MPs.

READ ALSO | TM racket: Abela encourages his cabinet to continue helping people with ‘legitimate needs’

Cassola argued that Abela’s remarks defended a corrupt system, wherein ministers and Labour Party insiders facilitated preferential treatment for certain applicants. He raised concerns that such practices could have resulted in unqualified individuals obtaining driving licences, thereby endangering road users and pedestrians.

In his report, the Standards Commissioner said Abela had made a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" assistance. The commissioner said that it was clear from the press conference excerpts that the prime minister did not endorse the alleged fraudulent actions currently subject to criminal proceedings.

Nonetheless, the commissioner questioned what kind of "legitimate" assistance a ministry’s customer care department could provide to driving test applicants. If such assistance involved queue-jumping, it would still be considered irregular, even if no help was given during the test itself.

The commissioner admitted that the prime minister’s comments could be construed as an endorsement of clientelism within Malta’s public administration, as long as it did not cross into criminal misconduct. He said officials should put an immediate stop to such "favours" by informing individuals that they could not intervene and explaining why.

The ruling clarified that the investigation focused on Abela’s expressed opinion rather than any direct action. The commissioner cited a previous ruling, which held that parliamentary members should be free to express their views without undue censorship. He stated that censoring opinions expressed by MPs could draw the office into the political arena, an outcome not intended by the legislature.

As a result, the commissioner concluded that the prime minister should not be found guilty of an ethical breach for expressing an opinion, even if it could be seen as a defense of practices associated with clientelism. He said that stronger justifications would be necessary to establish an ethical breach, such as making a factually incorrect statement on a matter within a minister’s remit. However, such a claim was not part of Cassola’s complaint.