No record of Abela phone-call with magistrate, information probe shows

Cassola request for Abela log of conversation with electronic turned down as no record exists of communication

Prime Minister Robert Abela
Prime Minister Robert Abela

A Freedom of Information complaint to release the identity of a member of a magistrate with whom Prime Minister Robert Abela had reported having had a conversation, has revealed that no record of the conversation was kept.

The complaint to the Information and Data Protection Commissioner was filed after independent politician Arnold Cassola’s FOI request to the Office of the Prime Minister was turned down.

The IDPC concluded that no document or record had been kept of the conversation Abela said he had with the unidentified female magistrate in question, reference of which was made during his speech on 29 January, on what Abela believed was the the malfunctioning of the Maltese courts.

The IDPC said the OPM did not hold any article on which the information requested by Cassola had been recorded, meaning there was no document that could be acceded to to satisfy the FOI request.

“We have now reached the stage where the Prime Minister of the country can hold unregistered conversations with members of the judiciary on the situation of the law courts in Malta, without leaving any record of such conversations,” Cassola said in a reaction to the IPDC decision.

“Who can assure us that in the future the Prime Minister will not avail himself of such undocumented conversations with Magistrates in order to influence the course of judicial processes?”

The IDPC considered that Cassola had not submitted any evidence to demonstrate that the requested information was held by the OPM, or rebut replies from the OPM which insisted the request fell out of the FOI Act’s parameters.

The IDPC said that in accordance with the case-law of the EU’s Court of Justice, applicants should submit relevant and consistent evidence capable of rebutting the presumption of legality and veracity when institutions or public authorities claim they are not in possession of a document requested by the applicant.