Editorial: Three people. Three stories. One problem

Eyebrows have been raised about three Cabinet choices Robert Abela made, namely Rosianne Cutajar, Glenn Bedingfield and Chris Fearne.

The Daphne Foundation and rule of law NGO Repubblika separately questioned the appropriateness of having Cutajar, Bedingfield and Fearne as ministers.

The reasons given for their objection to Cutajar was her unethical behaviour—she had been found guilty of a breach of ethics by the Standards Commissioner in 2021 and in a second episode in 2023 was forced to resign after chats between her and murder suspect Yorgen Fenech revealed how she used her seat in the Council of Europe to oppose a debate on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder.

It has to be noted that at the time Cutajar presumably, like everyone else except a small coterie of people, did not know Fenech was being investigated by the police over Caruana Galizia’s murder. Her behaviour at the time may have been questionable but it was completely in line with the general sentiment across the government. The chats had also revealed how Cutajar admitted to “pigging out” like others in government when she accepted a consultative role at the Institute for Tourism Studies.

The question we should be asking today is should Cutajar be forever excluded from occupying a ministerial role for the sins she committed prior to 2020—six years ago. This leader does not believe Cutajar should be excluded.

Her actions should continue to be scrutinised in light of her past indiscretions and she should not be surprised that people keep raising these arguments about her—this isn’t a question of hate but of concern in a country that lives by the mantra of everything goes.

Rather, Cutajar should rise above the criticism and show that she has changed and her focus today is her ministry and ensuring it delivers. She was Abela’s best choice for equality and civil liberties minister and we have no doubt she will give it her all.

Similarly, the objection to Bedingfield was that the Daphne Caruana Galizia Public Inquiry had identified him, as the author of a blog, as one of the Muscat-era government agents who helped create a sense of impunity. This related to the time before Caruana Galizia was murdered. Bedingfield, who was at the time employed in the Office of the Prime Minister, ran a vitriolic blog to counter the anti-Labour narrative that the murdered journalist was pushing on her own blog.

Should Bedingfield have been excluded from the role of home affairs minister on the basis of what the public inquiry concluded? No. This leader does not believe Bedingfield should have been automatically excluded from the role over what he wrote more than nine years ago.

If anything, the question should have been about his competence for the demanding role, something that will have to be judged over time.

This does not mean Bedingfield gets a carte blanche. The role of home affairs minister is very delicate—on the one hand it requires a person who is committed and hands on in terms of political direction but on the other hand it requires the judiciousness of not interfering with investigations. Bedingfield must prove that he can rise above partisan matters and give the police space to act without fear or favour even if it means stepping on the toes of people linked to the Labour Party, like Joseph Muscat. He must ensure the police have all the tools and resources to solve complex crimes, some of which had been flagged by Caruana Galizia and which involved people who were close to power. This is Bedingfield’s chance to prove himself.

And then there is Chris Fearne. His is the problematic appointment, which we do not agree with and are perplexed by because of ongoing criminal proceedings linked to the Vitals-Steward hospitals case.

Fearne has pleaded not guilty to the charges and in court has accepted to testify—a move not often done by those who face criminal proceedings. He has insisted that the corrupt hospitals deal was done behind his back and had been the one in Cabinet to object to certain manoeuvres. Indeed, many do feel that Fearne should not have been charged in the first place. But this does not diminish the gravity of having a minister who is indicted.

Fearne earned plaudits for his gentlemanly behaviour in 2024 when he was first charged. He immediately resigned from minister and even withdrew his nomination for European commissioner despite Robert Abela insisting, he should stay on. The question, which only Fearne can answer, is what has changed since then? Fearne knows that electoral support does not alter the facts on the ground and in this sense, him accepting the role is a disappointment.

But Fearne’s appointment as minister also creates a precedent that can tie Abela’s hands. If some other minister is involved in wrongdoing or unethical behaviour, what moral justification can Abela cite to force that person out of Cabinet when one of his most senior members is undergoing criminal proceedings?

We only hope that the Fearne situation will not be an excuse to justify all wrongdoing. It’s the last thing this country needs.