Daniel Attard faces scrutiny over Huawei VIP meeting

Prime Minister Robert Abela has firmly denied any allegations of corruption involving Labour MEP Daniel Attard, stating that the member of the European Parliament is “not involved in any investigation on corruption.” However, this declaration came just one day after Politico published a report in which Attard himself admitted he was “being investigated.”

This contradiction has sparked confusion and raised legitimate questions over the transparency and consistency of both Attard and the Maltese government’s narrative. The matter is not just a domestic embarrassment—it involves the European Parliament, Belgian law enforcement, and a broader cash-for-influence scandal tied to Chinese telecoms giant Huawei.

Request to lift Attard’s immunity suggests more than mere coincidence

The Belgian authorities have officially requested that the European Parliament lift Attard’s parliamentary immunity so that he may be questioned. Such a request is not made lightly. Parliamentary immunity in the European Union is a legal safeguard intended to protect MEPs from politically motivated prosecutions. However, lifting immunity is considered a last resort and is pursued only when credible suspicions exist that an individual may have relevant information—or could be personally involved—in criminal activity.

While this move does not, in itself, imply guilt, it indicates that the Belgian investigators consider Attard’s involvement potentially significant enough to warrant direct questioning. In this light, Prime Minister Abela’s insistence that Attard’s name surfaced merely because he was “mentioned in an investigation being conducted on other persons” does little to quell public concern or clarify the circumstances.

Huawei hospitality and the football match incident

One focal point of the investigation is a football match that Attard attended in a VIP corporate box at the Anderlecht stadium—hospitality provided by Huawei. The match, an Europa League fixture between Anderlecht and Ferencvaros, was not an ordinary event for fans but a highly exclusive gathering where Huawei entertained select guests.

During this event, Attard met with a Huawei lobbyist who is now under investigation by Belgian authorities. While Attard admitted that Huawei was “briefly discussed,” he later arranged a follow-up meeting with the same lobbyist—a decision that has intensified scrutiny.

Attard has defended his conduct, claiming that the meeting was “in line with the rules of the European Parliament.” However, these rules prohibit members from accepting valuable gifts or engaging in exchanges that may compromise their impartiality. Offering a meeting to a lobbyist after enjoying hospitality in a VIP suite—particularly from a company under investigation—raises questions about the propriety of Attard’s judgment.

Questions over the value of the gift received

One of Attard’s defenses rests on the claim that the value of the ticket he received was below the €150 threshold that would require official declaration. He cited this amount as the basis for not declaring the gift. However, while the average ticket price for the match was around €111.74, this figure applies to regular seating—not the exclusive hospitality box Attard was seated in.

According to industry sources, corporate hospitality packages for that particular match ranged between €1,290 and €1,490. Therefore, it is unlikely that Attard’s experience fell within the standard price bracket he cited. If Attard misrepresented the value of the hospitality received, it could constitute a breach of European Parliament ethics regulations, even if unintentionally.

Prime Minister Abela’s response: Minimizing the scandal?

Instead of calling for an internal inquiry or suspending Attard pending clarification, Prime Minister Abela downplayed the incident as being “ultra de minimis”—a Latin phrase denoting matters of negligible importance. He praised Attard for his “maturity” in offering to cooperate with authorities, though cooperation is hardly optional under such circumstances.

Abela went further, claiming Attard had no influence on policy decisions involving Huawei, implying that no conflict of interest existed. However, such a stance fails to address the broader ethical implications of engaging with a lobbyist from a company facing corruption probes, especially under the guise of generous hospitality.

Aide blamed for introducing Huawei lobbyist

Attard attributed the entire situation to his “Hungarian parliamentary aide,” implying he had no foreknowledge of the Huawei lobbyist’s presence at the match. Yet even after encountering the lobbyist, Attard chose not to disengage. Instead, he permitted a discussion—however brief—on Huawei and subsequently scheduled a follow-up meeting. These actions undermine the narrative of innocent coincidence.

If Attard had genuine concerns about being caught in a compromising scenario, he had several opportunities to remove himself. His decision to remain, engage, and meet again suggests a level of consent that complicates the official explanation.

Broader scandal casts shadow over European Parliament

This incident is part of a wider investigation involving alleged bribery and improper influence exerted by lobbyists on several current and former MEPs. Belgian prosecutors suspect that gifts such as VIP tickets were exchanged for favorable political stances, particularly on legislative matters impacting Huawei’s interests in Europe.

While Attard maintains he had no further involvement with Huawei after the meetings, the context in which the interactions occurred remains troubling. The very act of meeting a lobbyist who is under criminal investigation, especially in a setting involving luxury hospitality, places Attard in ethically dubious territory.

Roberta Metsola complaint raises further questions of hypocrisy

In a striking turn of events, Daniel Attard lodged a formal complaint with EU Ombudsman Emma O’Reilly, accusing European Parliament President Roberta Metsola of having a potential conflict of interest. Attard’s grievance centered on Metsola’s husband, who works as a lobbyist in the cruise ship sector.

This move appears contradictory given Attard’s own involvement with a Huawei lobbyist, a scenario arguably more serious given the backdrop of an ongoing criminal investigation. The perceived hypocrisy has further undermined his credibility both in Malta and Brussels.

Social media outburst and public backlash

Compounding his troubles, Attard earlier posted a now-deleted statement vowing to “work harder than ever before so that whoever is cruel will never return to Castille.” When asked to clarify who the “cruel” individuals were, Attard offered no direct answer, stating only that “these people are already known.”

Such emotionally charged public statements, especially amid serious investigations, only fuel public skepticism and reinforce perceptions of impulsiveness and lack of accountability.

Reputational damage to Malta and the Labour Party

Regardless of the outcome of the Belgian investigation, the scandal has already inflicted reputational damage on Malta and its representation in the European Parliament. Attard’s actions, and the government’s defensive posture, raise questions about governance standards, transparency, and the ethical conduct expected of public officials.

This incident also risks further eroding public trust in institutions, especially when government leaders appear more interested in shielding political allies than in promoting accountability.

Conclusion

The developing case involving MEP Daniel Attard raises significant questions about the balance between political duty, ethical standards, and public trust. Although no official charges have been filed, the unusual move by Belgian investigators to request the removal of his parliamentary immunity underscores the gravity of their concerns regarding his possible connection to the Huawei lobbying investigation.

Prime Minister Robert Abela’s dismissive response and characterization of the matter as “ultra de minimis” have done little to assure the public or observers within the European Parliament. Instead, such rhetoric risks undermining confidence in Malta’s commitment to transparency and ethical governance.

Attard’s own contradictory statements—first admitting to being under investigation, then attempting to minimize his actions—have further complicated his defense. By meeting with a lobbyist under investigation and accepting VIP hospitality, Attard has exposed himself and, by extension, Malta to reputational harm. His attempt to deflect attention by filing a complaint against Roberta Metsola only adds an air of hypocrisy that detracts from his credibility.

Ultimately, the matter calls for sober reflection rather than political posturing. The European Parliament must assess the facts impartially and determine whether Attard’s immunity should be lifted so that justice can proceed without interference. In the meantime, the Maltese government would be well advised to uphold the principles of accountability and integrity, rather than shielding political figures from scrutiny.

Public officials are entrusted with safeguarding the public interest—not serving private or corporate agendas. If democracy and good governance are to be preserved, ethical lapses must not be dismissed, regardless of political convenience.

FAQs

What is Daniel Attard accused of?
He is not formally accused but is under scrutiny in Belgium for receiving hospitality from Huawei and meeting a lobbyist under investigation.

Why did Belgian authorities request the lifting of Attard’s immunity?
They wish to question him in connection with a broader cash-for-influence investigation involving Huawei.

Did Attard declare the Huawei hospitality he received?
No, he claimed the value was below the €150 threshold required for declaration.

How much did the hospitality likely cost?
VIP packages for the football match Attard attended cost between €1,290 and €1,490, well above the declaration threshold.

What is Prime Minister Abela’s stance on the issue?
He dismissed the matter as trivial and praised Attard for his willingness to cooperate.

Was Attard involved in policy decisions affecting Huawei?
According to Abela, he was not involved in such decisions, though he did meet a Huawei lobbyist.

Did Attard meet the Huawei lobbyist more than once?
Yes, after an initial encounter at a football match, he scheduled a follow-up meeting.

What does the European Parliament’s code of conduct say about such meetings?
MEPs are prohibited from accepting gifts that could influence their duties or create a conflict of interest.

Why did Attard file a complaint against Roberta Metsola?
He alleged a conflict of interest due to her husband's lobbying work, despite facing similar scrutiny himself.

Has the European Parliament made a decision on his immunity?
As of now, the European Parliament has yet to make a final ruling on lifting his immunity.