Former police chief ‘unjustly’ ordered withdrawal of charges against former client

An inquiry has found that former police commissioner Peter Paul Zammit had personally intervened to drop charges against a former client of his who had acted violently in the Zabbar police station.

Zammit  was a legal procurator, and a former police superintendent, before his appointment by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat as Commissioner of Police after Labour’s election in March 2013.

The report was tabled in parliament by Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Abela after almost a year of pressure from the Opposition, whose shadow justice minister Jason Azzopardi had demanded the inquiry.

The report clearly shows that police officers were instructed from Zammit not to press charges against Josmar Agius, and that the inquiry board found claims by the former police head to be untrue or at best, economical.

The board of inquiry found that Zammit’s decision not to press charges, claiming that the accusation was unjust, was arbitrary one and that he failed to explain the reasoning behind his decision to drop charges.

Sergeant Keith Mallan told the board – chaired by Judge emeritus Francesco Depasquale, and civil servants Martin Bugelli and Stephani Pappalardo – that on 9 June 2013, Josmar Agius entered the police station, angry at the way his daughter’s report on a stolen mobile phone had been handed.

Agius refused to wait in a queue, entered behind the police desk, slammed the mobile phone box on the desk and shouted that he would report them to “Peter Paul” and another high-ranking police officer, whom he referred to by his nickname.

Agius then made a phone-call, complaining about the officers “that you have in the Zabbar police station”. He then asked for a complaint form, which he had to get from another police station, as none were available at the Zabbar station.

At 9:30pm on the day, a current incident report was filed with the names of all the officers present at the scene and two witnesses from the general public.

The next day, Peter Paul Zammit requested a report on the incident.

A few days later, Mallan was innformed by Inspector Marisa Zammit from the Human Resources Unit that the police commissioner had instructed him not to proceed in charges against Agius.

Mallan relayed these orders back to Superintendent Carmelo Bartolo, who angrily called Marisa Zammit to complain about the retraction of charges.

Marisa Zammit later wrote to Peter Paul Zammit, advising him that “we should issue same to wait for outcome from the Court”.

But Zammit ordered her to “suspend proceedings”. Five days after the incident, Bartolo was transferred from the police station.

In protest, Ray Vella Gregory, now Superintendent, filed a note in the case-file asking: “Why should we suspend proceedings when police officers were involved?”

Nothing happened until 19 November 2013 when Peter Paul Zammit asked whether his orders to suspend proceedings had been followed. An assistant commissioner responded in the affirmative, and on 4 December 2013, Zammit called for charges against Agius to be withdrawn. The board could not find any explanation within police files as to why this decision was taken.  

On his part, Zammit admitted that Agius was a former client of his and that he had taken a personal interest in the case and examined the report the day after it was filed.

He confirmed that he told Marisa Zammit to “do nothing at the moment, and then we’ll see later”. When asked, he said that the sergeant’s report held no basis to charge Agius. When asked why he had taken so long to order the cancellation of the case, Zammit said that he needed time to examine the file.

He confirmed that no investigation was carried out and that no witnesses were heard “because he didn’t think it was required”.

When asked why he had asked whether his instructions had been followed in November, Zammit said that he had heard that Agius was going to be charged in court. However, he then remembered that the police officer who was tasked with the stolen mobile case had called him to tell him that Agius’ mobile had been found.

It was this development that made him remember the case. The board pointed out that it was unusual for a mobile phone to have been found five months after it had been stolen, but Zammit insisted that he was certain of this version of events.

The board of inquiry argued that if had the case been as clear as Zammit had alleged, not requiring the testimony of any witnesses, then he shouldn’t have taken so long to reach a final decision or tell journalists that it was a “delicate case”.

The board said it could not understand why Zammit ignored all advice from several officers, including a Superintendent.

On his part Zammit told the board that he was against frivolous charges by police that put people in the hands of the courts, and that he had taken similar decisions on several other cases.

The board declared that no explanation or justification existed for the suspension and withdrawal of the charges against Agius, and that Zammit’s decision appeared to be a unilateral one.

“Although Zammit told us that he had taken this decision because he had felt that the accusation was unjust, there was no investigation, advice or procedure that led him to this decision,” the board’s report read.

“We have reached the conclusion that the decision to drop charges was an arbitrary one, particularly when one considers all the advice that Zammit had received  not to drop charges.

“Zammit should have explained the reasoning behind his decision to drop charges through a not ein the police files.”