EUMalta

Ana Gomes cherishes her Impunity

0
Ana Gomes cherishes her Impunity

EX-MEP, Ana Gomes, accused in Portugal for defamation.

When the PANA Committee headed by Ana Gomes visited Malta, it was to make an assessment of the rule of law in Malta.  Being a delegation of the European Parliament, one would reasonably have assumed that they would be objective and impartial in their assessments and conclusions.  In fact, the comments made to local and international media and the report itself showed that the members of this delegation did not have any appreciation of what objectivity and fairness were.

One of the MEP’s in the supposedly impartial delegation was David Casa, a raucous and boisterous front for the megalomaniac hate mongers in Malta.   During their visit, the Committee met a number of people apart from the political, official and juridical sector.  They met with people from organisations that do not represent anyone in Malta, they met the spokesperson of the tobacco lobby and they met people embroiled in corruption.   The latter set of introductions were in most probability arranged by MEP Casa as they happen to be his associates and collaborators.

I will make a deeper analysis of the ineffectual visits of this committee in later contributions.  In this piece, I will restrict myself to how Ana Gomes came to Malta with blazing swords against our country for what she alleged was the impunity granted to some individuals who were on Casa’s destroy list, she was wallowing in the impunity granted to her by the European Parliament to shield her from criminal activity which the Portuguese Authorities wanted to pursue against her.  She presented herself as a political mercenary for the megalomaniac hate mongers in Malta. 

For many years, a prime target of the megalomaniacs was me as they saw in me a big threat to their ambitions.  Ana Gomes, in her role as a political mercenary of the megalomaniacs, with her characteristic presumption and arrogance, had the audacity to include calumnious comments against me in the report that she submitted to the European Parliament.  She did not have the sagacity, prudence or decency to meet me to check the allegations with which she was being fed by Casa and his associates.  She relegated the ethics and integrity of the European Parliament to those of a wild west lynching party.   And the European Parliament let it go.

I asked to meet Gomes to talk about the calumnies that she replicated in her report, she tried to sweep it away with a video conference.  I insisted on a face to face meeting in Brussels or Malta.  This took place on the 1st June 2018 in Malta.  We had an hour-long meeting in which Gomes tried to stop a number of times.  The MEP’s could not sustain one single allegation contained in their report.  Yet Gomes typically kept firing barbs.  She was comfortable that no one can take action against her for her idiosyncrasies as she was untouchable. She had immunity from the European Parliament.  She had impunity for whatever irresponsible act she may commit.

Gomes is not new to controversy.  She faced accusations of antisemitism for allegedly referring to Jewish organizations as a “perverse lobby”. Two requests were made by the Deputy Attorney General of Portugal in 2014 and 2017 to waive Ana Gomes’ parliamentary immunity with respect to criminal proceedings against her.  Gomes fought to keep her immunity.  The European Parliament, protecting its own, maintained her immunity and the Portuguese Authority were blocked and could not act.  All this happened while Gomes was spouting fire about impunity in Malta.

Since 1 July 2019, Gomes is no longer an MEP.  On 30 September 2019 action was taken against her and she is now accused in the criminal court of defaming a “legal Person”.  Gomes immediately tweeted that this was intimidation.

I will not copy her presumption and comment on any issues on which she was charged.  Neither will I try to demonise anyone without knowing the details of all the facts.

The issue here is the principle of impunity.  And the hypocrisy of those who on one hand cling to and crave for their impunity while condemning impunity they presume is granted to others.

View our previous article on Kessler’s impunity here

Comments

Comments are closed.