Ricky’s whitewashing kangaroo court

Ricky Caruana can invite whoever he wants on his podcast. He can also adopt whatever style of questioning he fancies. But to invite a convicted sexual offender, allow him to say what he pleases and completely disregard the court’s findings is not only crass but dangerous. 

Caruana invited former national team goalkeeper Justin Haber last week to give his side of the story. It was more like, Haber emphasising those parts of the story that suited his agenda, while ignoring what the Criminal Court found him guilty of: “Subjecting another person... a vulnerable minor under the age of 15, to an act or behaviour of a sexual connotation, including words and deeds... that could reasonably be considered as offensive, humiliating, degrading and intimidatory towards her.” 

Court filings show that Haber repeated slapped the underage employee on her buttocks and once kissed her on the lips. The crux of it all was that the victim was a minor and significantly Haber was her boss. 

Haber was handed down a suspended sentence last September and the court ordered his name to be listed in the sex offenders’ register. The sentence in its entirety was confirmed by the Criminal Appeals Court last week after Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera gave short shrift to Haber’s appeal. 

Just as the ink on the appeals ruling was still drying up, Haber found a very accommodating host to file another appeal; this time in Ricky’s court of public opinion—a kangaroo court where wrongdoing is whitewashed, rarely challenged, or confronted with facts. 

And this is where an interview like Ricky’s becomes dangerous. 

Under the guise of giving Haber the chance to state his side of the story, Caruana allowed the former goalkeeper to publicly shame his victim and blame his ex-girlfriend for what he implied was a frame-up. These claims were left unchallenged and never confronted with the court’s actual conclusions. 

But Haber went one step further. He even suggested that the magistrate had shifted her opinion on the case after he was found guilty in a separate case of threatening his sister. Again, such serious statements were allowed to stand; unchallenged. 

Haber’s intention was clear. He wanted to win brownie points with the general public by portraying himself as the victim—a man whose sensitivity towards his underage employees was abused. But neither a magistrate nor a judge believed his version of events. 

Indeed, neither Haber nor Caruana seem to understand the gravity of the situation. This was a case involving an employer and an employee—a power dynamic that puts the employee in a vulnerable position unless the relationship is consensual. But in Haber’s case, the situation was made worse because the employee was underage. 

And no, it’s not OK to slap an employee’s buttocks in jest. It’s only worse if that employee happens to be an underage girl. It’s not OK to give an employee an unsolicited kiss on the lips or anywhere else for that matter. It’s even more problematic if she happens to be underage. 

We are not surprised with Haber’s audacity to go on Ricky’s podcast to try and clear his reputation. It’s what some offenders try to do when they are convicted of a crime. People like Haber tend to blame everyone else, including the judiciary, for their predicament. But Caruana should have known better than offer his platform to a convicted sex offender without having the decency and temerity to even question and challenge the guest’s assertions. Caruana may play dumb and insist his podcast is open to anybody, including the victim, but he cannot escape the fact that what he did was nothing short of reputation laundering. 

Ministers’ assets 

Robert Abela is right when he says that the annual declaration of assets and income of ministers and MPs should be equally onerous. But he is wrong to dismantle one system without replacing it with something more robust and transparent. 

It is wrong for Abela to stop publishing the declaration of assets of ministers simply because he deems their declaration as MPs is enough. His actions have reduced transparency and accountability rather than strengthened them. It is a shame that he has chosen this road because it suggests there is something to hide. 

We would like to see proper declarations filled in every year detailing income, assets, tax paid, positions occupied and jobs held outside parliament for all MPs, including ministers, and their spouses. We would like to see these declarations uploaded on parliament’s website and made accessible to the public. We would like to see fines introduced for MPs and ministers who fail to file their declaration on time or submit incomplete documentation. We would like to see more accountability and transparency, not less.