What needs to happen now…

Politicians have never liked to be probed. It is not a characteristic that you find in Labour politicians only. It is universal and truth be told, as one campaigner and former politician’s dogsbody likes to say, the interest to revisit the law that determines a magisterial inquiry did not start now.

Indeed, as this newspaper clearly explains in its special feature, some years back when Tonio Borg was at the helm – today he is a retired PN politician and professor at university – changes were proposed to magisterial inquiries. As today’s features exposes, or rather debates, for the sake of the MaltaToday readers, the reaction from Labour back then was forceful. “Fascists,” was the way the Nationalists were described in parliament.

Borg retreated and the amendment he proposed was shelved to be replaced with others that took a more respectful stand towards magistrates. The eventual changes were enacted by consensus.

Times have changed. Civil society and resilient legal teams have made magisterial inquiries the name of the game. The media has become more daring and secrecy is no longer possible. And before entering into the merits of the amendments, it is important to note that the reason most individuals have resorted to magisterial inquiries is because they have lost faith in the police.

For if the police were to have initiated investigations at all stages of the last 30 years, we would not be here discussing magisterial inquiries. The argument being put forward is that the police are investigating and that the police are getting results and that the magisterial inquiries are based on vexatious demands. Yet we know that the police have not been always forthcoming. Unlike others, I believe the police force under the current police commissioner is a much better version than what it was under any of his predecessors. Nonetheless, the police force still lacks the necessary oomph to act without fear or favour always.

If we are to be sincere, had it not been for some magisterial inquiries we would not have been aware of the extent of various illegal and corrupt or irregular practices.

And it is also true that someone like Jason Azzopardi has not always got it right and is a veritable pain in the ass, but no matter how much I dislike the guy and find his hypocrisy repulsive, I will never deny him the right to call for an investigation or to tell it as it is.

There is no doubt that the procedure to kick start an inquiry needs to be fine-tuned as is the protocol or procedure to enlist court experts. But we need to look at everything.

I am confused why, for example, in the Vitals/Steward case the police did not investigate before prosecuting. For if we are arguing that the police should be the first port of call, why then did they not investigate the people singled out in the Vitals Inquiry by Magistrate Gabriella Vella?

And yes, there are various aspects to the investigations that need to be clarified such as a better procedure to make the subject of a magisterial inquiry aware they are being investigated, better known as the avviso di garanzia.

There are other considerations, especially when investigations are leaked by the parties involved and third parties completely innocent and not party to the case are dragged into the public domain.

A lot needs to be changed. But what I am sensing in all this, is political posturing. In recent days, Robert Abela has been direct, assertive and unwavering in his defence of his ministers.  “Over my dead body,” he declared, his strong words aimed at bolstering his hard-core Labourite grouping. They love it when the leader sticks his neck out for them and they have seen much of it of late.

But it is also sending the message, that in defending them, he is basically declaring that his ministers are ‘clean’ and the ‘accusations’ are false. Again, another risk. It could be that most are clean and the accusations are false, but is he so sure?

The more Machiavellian aspect to this is that by attacking Jason Azzopardi and Robert Aquilina and linking them with the Nationalist Party, he is winning support from those who shun Azzopardi and the group Repubblika. In doing so, he wants to keep the PN from breathing fresh air.

I could be all wrong, who knows? 

***

There is no doubt that the decision by the prosecution in the Vitals case, to separate the charges and divide the defendants into smaller groups will benefit all those who are praying for a swift judicial process.

There are those who claim complete innocence and claim they have never done anything wrong.

But why did the Attorney General wait so long to decide to split the criminal cases? There are in my eyes some individuals from those facing criminal charges who should not have been arraigned. This does not count for everyone. The Attorney General failed twice; first when she should have insisted for the police to investigate all those mentioned as ‘potentially culpable’ before prosecuting them, and secondly for having realised what a horror it was to arraign everyone at the same time.

Having said this, the one person I will have my eyesight fixed on as the case moves forward is Chris Fearne. God my God!