Silvio Schembri accused of misleading Standards Commissioner

Malta’s Standards Commissioner, Joseph Azzopardi, has raised serious concerns over Minister Silvio Schembri’s conduct during an ethics probe, suggesting that the Minister lied about deploying public employees to staff his constituency offices. Despite uncovering inconsistencies and concluding that Schembri’s statements were untruthful, the Commissioner stopped short of formally ruling that the Minister had breached the Ministerial Code of Ethics, triggering public criticism over the perceived lack of accountability.

Background: Allegations of staff misuse surface

The controversy centers on reports that Minister Schembri, responsible for the Economy, European Funds and Lands, had deployed ministry staff to man four constituency offices in Luqa, Siggiewi, Rabat, and Zebbug. This practice, if proven to be part of official duties rather than voluntary after-hours assistance, would represent a clear violation of clause 5.7 of the Ministerial Code, which demands honesty and full disclosure to Parliament and the public.

Parliamentary records reveal that Schembri admitted to utilizing his secretariat for constituency work, stating, “A Minister’s secretariat is there to assist you in your work, which also involves being close to the people.” However, when later questioned by the Commissioner, he contradicted this admission, claiming staff only attended offices in “exceptional” circumstances, after regular work hours, and always on a voluntary basis.

The Standards Commissioner initiates an investigation

Following two formal complaints, Commissioner Azzopardi launched an inquiry. He posed a series of direct questions to the Minister concerning the involvement of his staff in the operation of constituency offices. Schembri, however, deflected, denied making such claims to Parliament, and insisted his staff only attended in his absence and only “between 4pm and 7pm.”

Crucially, Schembri declined to provide specific details such as the number of staff involved, their assigned hours, and how often they attended. Instead, he submitted the names of three aides: Edward Portelli, Sonia Mifsud, and Jolene Flask. All three were called to testify.

Identical testimonies raise suspicion

When interviewed, the three aides offered near-identical answers, raising the specter of coordinated testimony. Each emphasized they only visited the offices after their official work hours, typically from 5:15pm to 7:00pm, and that their involvement was minimal.

Edward Portelli, one of Schembri’s secretariat officers, repeatedly stressed that he only attended outside of work hours. “Not often, whenever he needs us,” he said, evading precise estimates.

Jolene Flask, who doubles as Schembri’s head of customer care and the secretary to the Malta Freeport Corporation board, echoed this line. “After work, and we go voluntarily until 7pm,” she stated.

Sonia Mifsud also parroted the narrative, claiming she couldn’t recall how many times she had gone. Her answers were peppered with uncertainty: “I don’t know… I can’t say… It’s possible, but I have no idea.”

Commissioner’s analysis exposes inconsistencies

Commissioner Azzopardi saw through the coordinated responses and drew attention to the clear contradictions. For example, while Schembri stated his constituency offices open at 4pm, all staff claimed they only attended from 5:15pm onwards. Given their official duties in Valletta end at 5:15pm, reaching the constituency locations during rush hour would be implausible without leaving early—thereby contradicting the claim that they were not on duty during those hours.

Even more damaging was the testimony by Edward Portelli, who slipped off-script during questioning and acknowledged that staff were typically present with the Minister. “Yes, yes, yes… there will be one of us with him even because of the people outside, to usher them in,” he said. When asked if this was a regular occurrence, he replied, “Yes, isn’t it obvious?”

Commissioner affirms disbelief in Minister’s version

The Commissioner made his position clear in his final report: “It is the view of the undersigned that what the Minister stated in Parliament amounts to a declaration that attendance at his district offices is part of the work of his secretariat staff. The undersigned cannot see how what the Minister said can be interpreted in any other way.”

Schembri’s denials did not align with the facts, and the Commissioner openly declared his disbelief in the Minister’s narrative. Despite this, Azzopardi declined to conclude that the ethics code had been breached, stating, “The undersigned has no other option but to conclude that Minister Schembri did not breach the ethics code in this case.”

A history of leniency undermines accountability

This episode adds to a growing perception that the Standards Commissioner’s office is reluctant to impose meaningful consequences on government officials, even when compelling evidence of misconduct arises. Critics argue that failing to hold officials accountable for dishonesty only entrenches a culture of impunity in public office.

Schembri’s case appears to be emblematic of a wider pattern in Maltese politics: a willingness to stretch or sidestep ethical boundaries without suffering consequences. By declining to escalate the matter beyond a written report, the Commissioner’s response may unintentionally normalize deceptive practices.

Broader implications for governance

The implications extend beyond Schembri. When a Cabinet Minister appears to mislead Parliament, withholds crucial information from an ethics body, and presents coached witnesses—only to walk away unscathed—it sends a troubling message about the integrity of public institutions.

Public trust in the checks and balances that safeguard democratic governance hinges on transparent and enforceable accountability mechanisms. When those mechanisms falter, confidence in the system is eroded, and ethical misconduct becomes politically survivable.

Conclusion: A test of political will

While the Commissioner may have believed his hands were tied, the broader failure lies not in the absence of rules, but in the unwillingness to enforce them. As long as high-ranking officials are allowed to sidestep scrutiny without consequences, the standards they are meant to uphold will continue to deteriorate.

Silvio Schembri’s case is a litmus test—not only of personal integrity but of institutional resolve. Without decisive action, the public will be left to conclude that in Malta’s corridors of power, ethical standards are more aspiration than expectation.

FAQs

Who is Silvio Schembri?
Silvio Schembri is Malta's Minister for the Economy, European Funds and Lands, and a Member of Parliament representing the Labour Party.

What was Silvio Schembri accused of?
He was accused of misusing public employees to staff his personal constituency offices and providing misleading statements to both Parliament and the Standards Commissioner.

What is the Ministerial Code of Ethics?
The Ministerial Code of Ethics is a set of guidelines that Cabinet members must follow, including a clause on honesty and providing accurate information to Parliament and the public.

Did Schembri admit to using staff in his offices?
In Parliament, Schembri acknowledged his secretariat assisted with constituency work, but later denied doing so during the ethics investigation.

What did the Commissioner conclude?
Although the Commissioner found inconsistencies and did not believe Schembri’s statements, he concluded that there was no breach of the ethics code.

Who testified in the investigation?
Three of Schembri’s aides—Edward Portelli, Sonia Mifsud, and Jolene Flask—testified, all providing near-identical and evasive answers.

Why was the Commissioner’s ruling controversial?
The Commissioner acknowledged dishonesty but failed to recommend any sanctions, prompting criticism over weak enforcement of ethical standards.

Are ministers allowed to use public staff for political work?
No, the use of government employees for political or constituency-related work during office hours is considered unethical and possibly illegal.

Was there any disciplinary action taken?
No formal disciplinary action was taken against Minister Schembri as a result of this investigation.

What are the broader implications of this case?
The case raises serious concerns about accountability and the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms in Malta’s political system.