[LIVE] 'No need to inform Cabinet of Cathy Farrugia', Gonzi tells PAC

“If I knew at the time I would have landed him in jail not simply remove him,” Gonzi tells Caruana of Tancred Tabone. Gonzi had said that Tabone was removed from Enemalta by Gatt after he had ordered all ministers [in 2004] to carry out changes in the chairmanship of key entities.

“I used to give general directions and the respective ministers would then take the necessary administrative decision,” Gonzi says. Miriam Dalli

Asked by Zammit Lewis how he could safely say corruption had stopped when 2007 emails showed a close relationship between Farrugia and the MRA, Gonzi said he “didn’t know what you are referring to”. When it was clarified that it was about Godwin Sant, Gonzi said this had nothing to do with the case at hand.

Questioned on Austin Gatt, former infrastructure minister, Gonzi said that “it is clear that the decisions taken by Austin Gatt addressed corruption because no evidence emerged after 2005.”

Bonnici points out that it took the Nationalist administration seven years to implement a procurement policy. Gonzi replies that it is incorrect to state there was no policy, but just that it wasn’t a written policy. “But policies existed.” Miriam Dalli

“I think that declaration agrees with what I am saying,” Gonzi says after Bonnici repeats Farrugia’s statement that corruption ended when Tancred Tabone left Enemalta.

Once again, Gonzi says that he immediately took action whenever he received information of corruption. “Yes Minister, we could have done more. How can I reply otherwise? What we do is never enough,” he adds when asked about the situation at Enemalta and what emerged from the Auditor General’s report.

“As a state of fact, the information of what was going in Enemalta was made public in January 2013. Who had such information at hand before should have not waited for the general election to jump on the bandwagon. Has the fight against corruption become political football?”

“But we have to ask ourselves why this information was kept hidden in a drawer, hidden away from justice, even though knowing this web and is issued in the middle of an electoral campaign. Everyone in this room should condemn this action. This person should have shouldered responsibility and went to the proper authorities.”

Gonzi’s outburst followed a question by Bonnici on whether proper action taken by the authorities along the years could have prevented such a widespread corruption operation. Bonnici says Gonzi’s reply should not have been against those who published the information, to which Gonzi replied that his criticism was against those who held onto the information until the general election. Miriam Dalli

Gonzi says that Fenech had been acting on his instructions [Gonzi’s] that they had to limit expenditure. He adds that he disagreed with Spiteri Gingell’s assessment because there were a number of safeguards and checks and balances in place.

In reply to several questions by Bonnici on the functioning of the fuel procurement committee – which was heavily criticised by the Auditor General in his report – Gonzi reminds Bonnici that the then Labour Opposition had refused to nominate a person – in 2005 – to sit on this committee.

“I’m not saying this was the perfect solution but it was a committee to supervise the procurement. Was this enough? Of course not but it was a base.”

Bonnici points out that the committee was set up after the market was liberalized. But Gonzi replies that he will not “cast doubts on the integrity of persons who formed part of that committee and who served the country”. Bonnici reminds Gonzi that no minutes were kept.

“Ok, I agree that minutes should have been kept. But it doesn’t mean that these persons were not trustworthy. But checks and balances were in place.”

Bonnici tells Gonzi that a former Enemalta CEO, Karl Camilleri, had sought George Farrugia’s advice when he left Enemalta. But Gonzi insists that the setting up of the fuel procurement committee was “positive” and led to the foundation of checks and balances. Miriam Dalli

“If you asked me to come here for the third time so that, for the third time, you ask me whether I should have informed Cabinet of Cathy Farrugia, no there was no need to let them know because it didn’t matter. […] Why do you treat me in this insulting manner? The insinuation is clear. Let us address it head on. The government’s insinuation is that I issued the pardon as a favour for Cathy Farrugia. I didn’t even do the favour when she asked me to meet her husband. All these insinuations and none of you remember that in my email I had refused to meet him.”

Gonzi says that as far as he remembers, Austin Gatt was present for the Cabinet meeting on 8 February at 9.30am. Zammit Lewis asks whether any minister had objected to the minutes of the Cabinet meeting during which the presidential pardon was approved.

Gonzi explained that a Cabinet member who was not present for a Cabinet meeting had the opportunity to ask for an explanation, a followup, or correction to the minutes in the next meeting.

When Zammit Lewis pointed out that the presidential pardon was signed on 10 February, a day before the Cabinet should have met, Gonzi insisted that the pardon was “valid independently of who was present or not”. Miriam Dalli

Gonzi also adds that the question of whether the presidential pardon had been successful for the investigation should be made to the Attorney General. When Bonnici comments that the question should also be made to Gonzi, as the person who “initialised” the process, Gonzi reiterates that his comments were made after Frank Portelli and Arnold Cassola urged him to reconvene parliament.

Gonzi also points out that, based on his years as a Speaker, parliament should not be making questions on an ongoing court case. “It is obvious that you are not following the COCP procedures. […]What I’m saying is: don’t tell me that this committee is following the guidelines when it is no,” he says. Bonnici asks Gonzi whether he wants to file a complaint to which Gonzi says ‘no’.

“But don’t tell me you are following the procedures when you are not,” the former PM reiterates. “I am here to answer all questions and that is what I am doing. Everyone should then shoulder their responsibility…” Miriam Dalli

Beppe Fenech Adami called Bonnici “a puppet” and said that “there are interests for the pardon to be withdrawn and the effect – as many legal persons are saying – is that the current proceedings against individuals who have been arraigned would be prejudiced.”

“It is evident that the pending cases would be prejudiced and I urge the government MPs not to play to the tune of those interested for this pardon to be withdrawn,” Fenech Adami says, then adding that it was the investigated parties who had an interest in the pardon being withdrawn and not the government MPs. Miriam Dalli

“None of the Cabinet members expressed reservation on the Police Commissioner and Attorney General’s advice to issue a pardon. According to the newspapers, two ministers – Dolores Cristina and Tonio Fenech – were not present during that Cabinet meeting.”

Pressed further, Gonzi says that “yes, the decision by the Cabinet was based on the advice of the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner”. Asked whether the two had also been the one to initially suggest the pardon, Gonzi reiterates that he had given comments to the media following suggestions by Frank Portelli and Arnold Cassola for parliament to reconvene and approve a Whistleblowers’ Act.

“I remember being asked by the media whether parliament would reconvene to grant an amnesty and I said that I was ready to advice the President to approve a presidential pardon to whoever was prepared to come forward with information.

“Michael Cassar [then one of the investigators] told this committee that he had informed George Farrugia of what I said. I understand that this created a chain of events. And we all know the result of the presidential pardon: based on this pardon, seven persons were arraigned in court in four weeks.”

Asked by Bonnici whether he is “satisfied” that the outcome of the pardon resulted in justice. “My opinion is that in four weeks since the pardon was issued, seven persons were arraigned in court. What I am not satisfied about is that, after the new government was elected, not only were no new persons arraigned but that the investigative team was dissembled.

“I am not satisfied with how the investigations continued after I no longer occupied the role of Prime Minister. I am not even satisfied with the parliamentary process. And now we hear that a person will be arraigned.”

“I don’t recall, I honestly can’t remember whether there was a particular request but if there was a request I would have given my consent. Usually that was my practice whenever the police requested permission,” he says.

Bonnici then asks Gonzi to confirm whether Cathy Farrugia had worked on the same floor as Gonzi during his years at Mizzi Group. Gonzi says that the word “floor” was added by Bonnici.

Gonzi reiterates that all emails in his possession from Cathy Farrugia were presented to the PAC.