Peter Paul Zammit – That’s interesting
Published:
June 27, 2013 at 1:55pm
In The Times, last Monday (I had missed it):
According to the law, the declarations of expenses by candidates have to be submitted by personal election agents of the candidates and sworn before a commissioner of oaths.
The ‘big’ parties – the Labour and the Nationalist parties – normally coordinate this exercise and use ‘friendly’ legal professionals to file the submissions to the Electoral Commission.
While all the PN declarations were sworn in front of Henri Darmanin, the head of the party’s electoral office, all Labour’s declarations were signed by the commissioner of oaths, Peter Paul Zammit. A few days after signing these declarations, Mr Zammit was appointed Police Commissioner.
14 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Very interesting indeed.
During the run-up to the Sliema Local Council Elections in 2009, Cyrus Engerer had a multi-page full colour A4 brochure printed. This is estimated to have cost in the region of Euro 20,000.
Cyrus also had cards, DVDs, pamphlets and posters produced and printed for his campaign and attempt to become a Sliema Local Councillor.
When it was pointed out by the other Councillors that Cyrus Engerer was lying under oath when he swore to have kept with the limit allowed to Councillors (I believe it is around Euro 500) the answer was. “If he’s lying under oath then that’s his problem”
Cyrus Engerer has since switched to Labour yet if the PL wants to retain some credibility it should ask the Electoral Commission to go into this matter.
Lying under oath is a crime and the perpetrator is a criminal after all.
The declaration is a farce. The vast proportion of the money spent is at the expense of the “Friends of (insert name of candidate)”, and which candidate can exert control over his friends as to how they choose to spend their money?
Do you seriously think that these friends spend the money out of love or is the money more likely spent as an investment in a candidate to be translated into favours once the candidate is elected?
This is the first step in the corruption of candidates.
The problem is not whether a candidate can exert control over his friends as to how they choose to spend their money but rather whether that candidate is willing to do so.
What a circus!
Thank you, Daphne, for documenting it all.
‘Panis and circensis’ indeed.
We’re still waiting for the ‘panis’ bit though.
‘Very interesting’ doesn’t even come close.
Were it to have been done under a PN administration all hell would have broken loose.
For the sake of accuracy, PN candidates did not swear their declarations in front of Henri Darmanin but in court in front of the duty magistrate.
The instructions by the Electoral Commission were very clear: that is that expenses declarations had to be sworn in front of a magistrate. Why and how the labour candidates were allowed to get away with this is mysterious.
Is there a chance that the new Police Commissioner will examine this matter?
Maybe Inspector Gadget can deliver a dossier to the Police HQ about this case?
Only when hell freezes over.
The smell is becoming more pungent. Bordering on a stench after 100 days.
U dan il-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija jghid li hu a-politiku?
Yes, certainly, because these days one has to use a new definition for everything, just like we had to do with ‘meritocracy’, ‘transparency’ etc.
There are definitions and then there are definitions according to the PL.
If the Labour declarations were signed by a Commissioner of Oaths, did that do away with the need to have them sworn in then?
It doesn’t seem to me to be an equal or equivalent act, but perhaps I’m missing something?