[WATCH] Karol Aquilina: ‘PN government will reverse magisterial inquiry reform’
Opposition justice spokesperson Karol Aquilina says government’s proposed reforms to magisterial inquiries aim to restrict citizens’ rights. He tells Karl Azzopardi the push for reform follows a series of high-profile inquiries involving Labour politicians. Aquilina insists a Nationalist government will reverse the reforms and strengthen the law


The Prime Minister’s attempt to reform the law regulating magisterial inquiries is aimed at denying people the right to request an inquiry, Karol Aquilina insists.
The Opposition justice spokesperson says the Criminal Code already has the necessary safeguards against abuse.
Aquilina sits down with me in the same week the government tabled the First Reading of a Bill to amend the Criminal Code. The move came after a series of statements by Robert Abela on the government’s intention to reform the rules regulating magisterial inquiries.
Aquilina insists that the government’s push for reform comes after several Cabinet ministers were targeted by inquiries.
“The Labour Party wants to enact this reform because a number of Labour politicians have been caught in one scandal after another,” he tells me.
No details have yet been provided by the government on what the reform will entail, but the Opposition has already made it clear that it will vote against it.
“The first thing we will do is try to convince the government not to proceed with this change. This is a step backwards. [...] The government must listen to the wider sentiment that this reform should not go ahead. If it wants to improve the system, magistrates should be better empowered, not have citizens’ access to magisterial inquiries limited,” he says.
Aquilina says it is “obvious” that if the Nationalist Party is elected to government, it would reverse the changes made by the current administration and “make the law stronger, not weaker, as the government is doing now.”
After Abela, earlier this week, criticised inquiry requests by lawyer and former MP Jason Azzopardi as being based on news reports containing “falsehoods”, I ask Aquilina whether he believes better evidence should be presented to support claims of wrongdoing or corruption.
“Does the Prime Minister not trust Maltese journalists in how they carry out their work? I trust that if a journalist publishes a report, they have carried out the necessary verifications,” he says.
He also questions why, despite the fact that the quoted reports had been published for months, no minister had filed a libel suit over the claims made in the articles.
“Why is Clint Camilleri claiming political persecution? Is it because an inquiring magistrate will now be collecting evidence on what did or did not happen?” he asks.
Aquilina also questions Abela’s trust in the judiciary, reminding people that in a request for a magisterial inquiry, it is the magistrate who decides whether there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation.
“I have full trust that if a magistrate looks at a request and sees that insufficient evidence has been presented, they will reject it, and this has happened more than once. If we do not trust the magistrates to do this, we have a serious problem in the country,” he says.
Aquilina also voices concern over comments made by the Prime Minister on Sunday, in which he proposed protection to civil servants from personal responsibility when carrying out their official duties.
“That statement means the ministers are ordering public officials to do something that could get them into trouble,” he says. “Abela is essentially telling them to be complicit because the government will cover for them.”
The following is an excerpt of the interview.
The full interview can also be viewed on Facebook and Spotify.
A Nationalist government in 2006 had similarly proposed reforming magisterial inquiries, only to backtrack after being criticised for it. Is your criticism convenient because you’re in Opposition and you have nothing to lose?
It was nothing like what the government is proposing now. A number of safeguards were introduced; for example, if an inquiry is being carried out on an individual, that individual is notified and can present their argument. […] There are some who argue, such as former chief justice Vincent De Gaetano, that this is not right, and we are among the few countries with this system in place.
The government is up in arms over this because several government ministers have been investigated over allegations. If the government needs to change anything, it must strengthen citizens’ access to inquiries, not weaken it.
Among those who have issued statements in favour of a reform in the magisterial inquiry system is the Malta Development Association. It argued that companies involved in government projects are caught up in political controversy and have no way to rebut allegations. Do you think they are making a valid argument? Could it be preventing companies from investing or participating in government projects?
I don’t think they are right in seeing it that way. If the job is carried out diligently and legally, there is no fear of being caught up in a criminal investigation. Also, in our law, we have the necessary safeguards, and if you are subject to an inquiry, you can present your side of the argument. […] I don’t think the MDA should be worried that the company of one of its members will be investigated. I think we should help people in business strengthen their company’s governance and provide them with tools to ensure offences like corruption and trading in influence are prevented.
[…]
I must insist that the vast majority of Maltese and Gozitan businesses are very serious and professional and have gone to great lengths to prevent abuse.
Robert Abela is trying to associate the Nationalist Party with Jason Azzopardi and Repubblika. Do you think he is doing this strategically because he might feel that this impacts your popularity with the electorate?
The Nationalist Party remains the Nationalist Party. While it seeks to cooperate with others whose principles and ideas align, it remains the second-largest party in the country and the constitutionally recognised Opposition. No NGO can do what we do. […] We want more people to step up and contribute. I enjoy seeing people like Jason Azzopardi taking certain initiatives, and we need more like him. I don’t think people feel the Nationalist Party is doing anything wrong because it is saying what needs to be said.
You criticise the government for bad practices and lack of accountability in governance, but recently news emerged that the PN has failed to meet another deadline in submitting its accounts. How do you expect people to agree and support what you do, when you don’t have your house in order?
At the same time, we have the Prime Minister who has failed to submit his asset declaration for the past two years…
100% but we are speaking about what the PN is doing here…
I don’t think it’s good for a political party to not submit its accounts; it is wrong for the PN to have this shortcoming. But I am also aware of certain circumstances that have arisen, and I understand them.
Political parties are operated by volunteers, and we need to start having a conversation about how they need to be supported in their operations, as is the case in other countries.
But this is an issue which has spanned years not months…
I am not justifying it, but we need to see how the state can help parties organise themselves better. We only have obligations for the parties, but we do not have ways to support them in their organisation.