Gonzi confirms knowing Cathy Farrugia but vehemently denies ‘familiarity’

A former work colleague at Mizzi House’s head office, Lawrence Gonzi vehemently denied “familiarity” with Cathy Farrugia, the wife of pardoned oil trader George Farrugia, insisting that he only knew her as one of hundreds who worked at the legal office.

After MaltaToday’s publication of emails between Cathy Farrugia and Gonzi, the former prime minister yesterday presented the public accounts committee with a thread of emails that went on between the three.

Reiterating that between 2006 and 2013 he had received over 96,000 emails and personally replied to over 46,000 emails, Gonzi insisted that “allegations of familiarity with the Farrugia family were being done in a malicious manner”.

Read more: Live-blog

The thread of emails as presented by Gonzi shows Cathy Farrugia emailing Gonzi on 2 July 2008 at 8:47pm. In the email, Cathy Farrugia writes:

“it’s been a while since we met and we hope that you and your family are doing fine. We are all ok and starting to enjoy the summer now that the kids are off school [sic].

“George would like to have a private word with you at your convenience. I know you are busy but it won’t take long. He can meet you when and wherever most convenient. Can you please?”

The email is signed “Cathy.”

In a reply the follow morning, 3 July 2008 at 9:58am, Gonzi replies:

“Dear Cathy, Thanks for your email. I can try to set up a meeting but will prove to be complicated during July. Is there any particular subject which he would like to bring to my attention via email?”

The email is signed “Lawrence”.

According to the thread as presented by Gonzi, an email from George Farrugia at 12:36pm on the same day followed. In the email, Farrugia explained that his company – PowerPLan Ltd – was one of the bidders for the privatisation of Enemalta’s petroleum division. He said that he “heard rumours from informed sources that things may not be as straight as they should” and went on to request a meeting “to get your assurance that the rumours heard from different insiders are in fact just rumours”. Farrugia went on to add that “there are other matters which I will pass on to you once will have an opportunity to meet you”.

Twelve minutes later Gonzi replied, copying his personal assistant Edgar Galea Curmi, explaining that “on a point of principle I do not accept to have meetings on issues that are proceeding by tender, especially with the bidders themselves or their representatives”. He then suggested to Farrugia that he should send him queries or points via email and to report any allegations of irregularities to the competent authorities.

At 19:16 Farrugia wrote back to Gonzi: “[…]I did not ask for the meeting to request any favours or privileges or to embarrass you in any way. […] Having got to know of some disquieting rumours, I thought it would interest you to know. I do not have any proof of the alleged events and neither am I trying to create any rumours. […] Should I come across tangible evidence I will of course refer the matter to the authorities to protect the interests of my company.”

Addressing the public accounts committee, Gonzi said: “Allegations of any familiarity with the Farrugia family is being done in a malicious manner and I hope that the PAC does not take subscribe to it. I hope my clarification and my refusal to meet Farrugia over a tender bursts the bubble of those who want to cast doubts. It is scandalous that only parts of the contents of my email were published. I refused to meet them and this reply was not published. I have to register my disgust.”

The government MPs however continued to grill Gonzi on why Cathy Farrugia had referred to her children in the email and why there had been an exchange of emails on a first name basis.

Expressing his annoyance at the line of questioning, Gonzi reiterated that he “wasn’t stupid” and knew what the MPs were trying to imply.

“I expected questions to be on what I said and that I refused to meet them. […] What are we doing here? Is this a court procedure? I want to know what is going on here. Because if so… I am a lawyer and I know how to reply. It is obscene. This is a political environment. I have the right to reply in this political environment. If you want, stop me,” a visibly irritated Gonzi said.

Recommending to the PAC that it should “investigate everything”, Gonzi, in a dig at Manuel Mallia, said that he had never legally represented any members of the Farrugia family.

“There are things which this committee has to clarify. Michael Cassar said he had wanted to arraign the Farrugia brothers [before the change in administration]. […] Manuel Mallia resigned as minister on 9 December 2014. A few days later Michael Cassar [now police commissioner] said that the Farrugia brothers would be arraigned.”

Lawrence Gonzi could not remember why the previous administration had halted the privatisation process of the petroleum division, adding that former finance minister Tonio Fenech would be in a better position to explain it.

Gonzi was also not in a position to explain George Farrugia’s involvement in a presentation he received over a private oil bunkering project at Benghajsa.

Although Farrugia had told the PAC that he had made arrangements with Leonard Callus – a member of Gonzi’s secretariat – for the presentation, Gonzi said he could only recall that the project involved investors from the Gulf and the Hili family.

“All I know is that this would have been an investment from the Gulf and that the local promoters were the Hili’s. I don’t know how George Farrugia was involved in it,” Gonzi said.