WATCH | Joe Giglio: ‘What we heard should never have happened’

Joe Giglio is not convinced the Nationalist Party can build enough consensus in parliament for its Omnibus Bill to pass, but he remains hopeful. 

The bill contains several proposed legislative changes to implement the recommendations of the Daphne Caruana Galizia Public Inquiry. The PN tried the same route in 2022 without success. 

But Giglio insists the Opposition’s job is to keep up the pressure through persuasion, using the means given to it by law and parliamentary procedure. 

On the Yorgen Fenech trial, he says the PN’s complaint is not the jury’s verdict but what was heard—a chief of staff talking to others, WhatsApp chats and meetings inside Castille. “These are situations the PN can never accept,” he says. 

Asked about jury reform, he says there is always room to discuss it. However, he does not agree with requiring each juror to explain their vote, arguing this would compromise the jury system’s secrecy. 

He also says he has not even considered running for deputy leader. 

The following is an excerpt from the interview. Some parts have been edited for clarity and brevity. 

The PN already tried an Omnibus Bill in 2022, which went nowhere. After hearing Prime Minister Robert Abela speak the way he did during parliament’s opening session, are you convinced you can build enough consensus this time? 

Convinced? No. I keep hoping, though. 

In Opposition, your job is also to keep up the pressure, wherever you think and feel that something you can do will be for the good of the country, through persuasion and using the means the law and parliamentary procedure give you. 

You hope that, finally, those concerned will come to appreciate the need to introduce these important laws, which should give our country more credibility. 

I remind you that in the past there were occasions when the PN insisted on certain things, for example that a public inquiry be held in the Jean Paul Sofia case... 

Why an Omnibus Bill instead of a series of separate bills? We are talking about reforms ranging from the Criminal Code to the Constitution and media legislation. 

The word “omnibus” comes from Latin and means a single bill that changes many, many different laws together. 

The aim is to bring together in one bill the amendments to the Constitution, the Criminal Code, the act on the media, and the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. Instead of being discussed piece by piece, they come in as one bill and are discussed at once, so the reform is more complete than a scattered one, which would take much longer. 

But if you had to make each amendment separately, wouldn’t that help, since someone might say they agree with some but not with others? 

If there is any hint that the government thinks or believes there could be consensus on some of these, then there is nothing wrong with going along with the proposal you are making. 

One recommendation is a new offence tied to mafia-type association. In parliament, Robert Abela said he disagrees completely, because it would give the impression that Malta is a mafia state. What do you say to the prime minister? 

Let me be clear; I appreciate his opinion, but I disagree. Having legislation regulating the possibility of mafia-type associations does not mean the state is a mafia state. This legislation exists in other European countries too, democratic countries that are avant-garde, and I do not think he needs to take it that way. 

What exactly is the PN proposing with this offence? Take the Maksar brothers’ case. The offence didn’t exist, yet they were convicted and jailed. What would the amendment have added in practice? 

The offence is different, and that is Robert Abela’s difficulty. In the Maksar case, those prosecuted were prosecuted over proven involvement in wilful homicide by supplying the bomb. 

The offence I am talking about tries to cover those situations where you have these groups of people who exercise the power they have, these associations that have these affinities between them, and who may not yet have acted. The deterrent of criminal law leads them to a situation where they choose not to act in that way. 

I think you appreciate that in the Maksar case, those accused and found guilty were charged with making a bomb, and the bomb led to the killing of the journalist. 

In this particular case it would not have added anything, because this particular case was solved. What I am explaining is that it creates a deterrent for anyone who has the idea of starting to take part in these types of organisations, of joining them. Membership in itself is already punishable and creates a deterrent. 

Creating criminal laws does not mean we will eliminate crime. That would be utopia. Criminal law tries to instil a deterrent in whoever is listening: ‘I would rather not break the law and follow it, because if I do not, I will face penalties, consequences and sanctions.’ 

Here we are going a step back. You have not committed an offence, but you are joining to commit these offences as part of an organisation. It is naturally wider than the simple offence of association that we have at the moment. 

Let me take you back to the verdict in the Yorgen Fenech jury trial. Alex Borg, among others, first defended and praised the jurors. Then Alex Borg and others from the PN attended the protest organised by civil society, which expressed anger at the verdict and everything that came out of the trial. How do you reconcile these two positions? 

Very simply. The PN’s position is not one where our criticism and our protest are about the verdict. You have to distinguish between the verdict and what we heard during the trial. 

You can agree or disagree with the verdict, but a legal process took place, one that went through the scrutiny of our courts. From the political aspect, not the legal aspect of the verdict, what we heard we should never have heard, because it should never have happened. 

This is the difference that people out there need to understand. We certainly heard chiefs of staff talking to this person and that person, WhatsApp chats. People meeting inside Castille, people holding meetings and being present at meetings, who were supposed to be investigating and at the same time were very close to the suspect. That is what should never have happened. That is what the PN is complaining about. These are situations the PN can never accept. 

Civil society and various other organisations took part in that protest, but you distinguish between what we heard, what we understood was going on, and the jury’s verdict. They are two completely separate things. You may agree or disagree with the verdict, but that takes its natural legal course. 

After the verdict, many people, including politicians, said they were shocked. Some criticised the jury system, and some said it is wrong that jurors give no reasons for their decisions. Do you think the time has come to reform the jury system, and how? 

There is always room for reform; room to discuss whether reform is needed. 

You can ask, for example, whether in more complicated offences you want to bring technical people in alongside the jurors, or whether you want them to give reasons. I do not much agree with reasons, because reasons can only be given anonymously. If every juror has to give the reason for their vote, the secrecy of the vote is gone. 

You first have to think about the concept that each juror’s verdict stays anonymous to protect them, and should never be revealed. If you impose on each of them the writing of the reason why they reached that decision, it would strongly and seriously disrupt the jury system. 

The PN is expected to hold a race for the deputy leader post when the statute changes. Are you interested in contesting? 

Honestly, I haven’t even considered it. I’ll be honest with you.