Govt MPs try to puncture holes into Gonzi’s oil pardon claim

Former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi was adamant that a presidential pardon granted to pardoned oil trader George Farrugia was done so only on the advice of the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner, but confronted with the testimony of John Rizzo he admitted that his comments of amnesty set talk of a pardon in motion.

Gonzi yesterday evening appeared before the public accounts committee investigating the Auditor General’s audit into Enemalta’s fuel procurement. For two hours and a half he was questioned by the government MPs in connection with the oil scandal.

At the start of the sitting, Gonzi read out an eight-page statement during which he insisted that the first time he had heard of the corruption at Enemalta was through the newspapers, when MaltaToday published the first report on the case in January 2013.

Read more: [Live blog] Gonzi admits amnesty comment set talks of a pardon in motion

He also defended his administration’s decision to advice the President to grant Farrugia a pardon, insisting that this had not been capriciously and it had only been done on the advice of the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General.

The police team investigating the case was been led by then police chief John Rizzo, then assistant police commissioner Michael Cassar, Inspector Angelo Gafa and Superintendent Paul Vassallo, who all appeared before the PAC.

The PAC had heard that while the presidential pardon had been pivotal in the investigation, yet the police failed to uncover any irregularities after 2005 even after the pardon was granted. Michael Cassar, today police chief, had also told the PAC that the police “were not interested in information concerning Tancred Tabone and Frank Sammut because the evidence we needed was already in hand. This took us back to 2005 where we wanted to know whether any corruption took place between then and now”.

The same position was repeated by Supt Vassallo minutes before Gonzi’s session started. Confronted with this statement by Justice Minister Owen Bonnici, Gonzi told Bonnici: “Yes, but if I were you I would give more importance to what John Rizzo said.”

The former prime minister repeatedly said that it was Rizzo who went to him saying the presidential pardon would help the police in their investigation because the person concerned was ready to speak if he were to be pardoned.

“[Rizzo] asked me to consider it and I told him I would be ready to consider it if, based on his experience, he felt it was required. The pardon came because the police – through John Rizzo who was the only person I kept in contact with – asked for it. And I insisted that the AG and the Police Commissioner tell the Cabinet whether the pardon would lead to where the investigations did not,” Gonzi insisted.

Yet this statement contradicted the team’s own claims that they had first heard of a presidential pardon through the media. In fact, Gafa and Cassar said that Farrugia had availed of his right to remain silent during the 48-hour arrest. As the 48 hours were about to expire, news emerged of Gonzi saying he would consider an amnesty for information. The investigating officers informed Farrugia of this fresh development. The next day, Farrugia’s lawyer Franco Debono called Gafa and later spoke to Rizzo.

Rizzo told the PAC: “I wasn’t involved in the initial decision to propose a presidential pardion. I called Edgar Galea Curmi, then head of secretariat within the Office of the Prime Minister, to let him know what I had heard. Lawrence Gonzi then contacted me and asked me how the investigations were proceeding. He asked me what Farrugia knew, but at that stage we didn’t know. The investigative team however suggested that Farrugia could be of help.”

Rizzo’s testimony to the PAC was read out by tourism minister Edward Zammit Lewis as government MPs tried to suss out whether the presidential pardon had in fact been initially suggested by Gonzi and how that influenced the course of events.

“Yes, he [Rizzo] is saying the same thing as I am. […]The AG and the Police Commissioner confirmed that the presidential pardon was needed,” Gonzi said.

Insisting that he had not answered his question, Zammit Lewis once again read out Rizzo’s statement where he claimed to have first heard of the presidential pardon in the media.

“I assume he is referring to the fact that he came to Castille when he had indications about the presidential pardon,” Gonzi then said. “I repeat John Rizzo came to Castille when there was this development as a result of what I said. Rizzo was not involved in the comments I gave to the media. He became involved after that comment and when he had indications that the presidential pardon could be of help.

“Rizzo is obviously saying he was not involved in the issuance of the presidential pardon because I was the one who made the comment. But that effect resulted in the presidential pardon. […] It makes sense. I explained it already.”

Cathy Farrugia: ‘an employee in a company that employed thousand’

When news emerged that a George Farrugia had paid illegal commissions over the sale of oil to Enemalta, Gonzi did not immediately realise that he was the same Farrugia of the “Farrugia family”. But when further information and news of the brothers’ court case started emerging, the name clicked.

“I knew George Farrugia as part of the Farrugia family, but nothing more,” Gonzi said.

On Cathy Farrugia, Farrugia’s wife, Gonzi said he didn’t know whom she was or who her family was when they worked together in the same firm at Mizzi House.

“She was one of the workers in company that employed over a thousand people,” he said. “As far as I remember, she never communicated with me. If I had to list the number of persons who spoke to me over these 10 years … but no.”