Magisterial inquiries: When Labour accused the PN government of fascist tactics
Robert Abela’s attempt to change the way magisterial inquiries can be requested by ordinary citizens is a case of history repeating itself. The only difference is the actors have swapped places. MaltaToday executive editor Kurt Sansone reviews the parliamentary transcripts from 2006 to try and understand the present.

History has a way of repeating itself with different actors. The government’s latest attempt to change the way magisterial inquiries can be requested by ordinary citizens is one such instance.
Let us try and picture the scene – MPs sitting on the purple seats of the old chamber of parliament inside the Grand Master’s Palace in Valletta in 2006. The following statements echo loudly in the chamber amid thumping on the wooden benches: ‘You are fascists; cowards; you should be ashamed; we’re back to the Mussolini era; this is a frontal attack on magistrates; a vote of no confidence in magistrates and ordinary citizens.’
These strong words are uttered by Labour MPs after justice minister Tonio Borg presents a Bill that includes a proposal to change the manner by which magisterial inquiries requested by ordinary citizens can be initiated.
The proposed change is included in an omnibus Bill that contains several legal amendments to various laws, including laws that have to do with drugs and prostitution.
The PL is in Opposition and the PN in government.
Tools of persecution
Tonio Borg is proposing that the magistrate receiving a request from an ordinary citizen to investigate some wrongdoing would have to first ask the Chief Justice for permission to proceed with the inquiry.
Opening the debate during the Second Reading on Bill 69 on 23 May 2006, Borg argues the amendment is needed to introduce “certain control” over magisterial inquiries.
During committee stage Borg motivates his reasoning by saying that he does not want magisterial inquiries to end up being used as tools of “persecution”.
Borg expresses concern that people could end up being investigated on somebody’s whim with the person only hearing about the inquiry “through the grapevine”.
Borg’s solution is to introduce a filtering system through which the Chief Justice would decide whether an inquiry requested by anyone other than the Attorney General or the police, should go ahead or not.
But the Labour Opposition is having none of it and accuses Borg of undermining trust in the judiciary. Labour leader Alfred Sant has already labelled Borg’s initiative as an attempt by Cabinet to control what kind of inquiries are carried out by independent magistrates.
Fascists and Mussolini
“Why does government want to introduce this amendment? This is the million-dollar question! Is it because you don’t trust magistrates? This is a frontal attack on magistrates,” Labour justice spokesperson Gavin Gulia says during the first sitting of the Second Reading.
Gulia even accuses the government of trying to stifle magisterial inquiries because of two highly controversial inquiries initiated by ordinary citizens – one involving a former police commissioner and another concerning alleged abuse at the Foundation for Tomorrow’s Schools. The latter inquiry had been requested by Labour MP Carmelo Abela and although Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera found no criminal wrongdoing, she had raised serious concerns over certain practices in the government-run entity. The magisterial findings embarrassed the Nationalist government.
But Gulia’s criticism of the amendment pales into insignificance when compared to the tough words used by fellow Labour MP Jose Herrera in the debate.
Herrera first accuses the Nationalist MPs of being “fascists”, then retracts the description and instead labels the proposed change a “fascist amendment” that harks back to the “Mussolini era”.
“If a magistrate is able to send a person to prison for 10 years, you should trust them enough so that if they want to investigate you, they decide so for themselves and not have someone else do it for them,” Herrera argues, calling government MPs cowards.

Borg withdraws amendment
This was the scene that characterised the heated debate in 2006. Eventually, at committee stage in July, Borg withdrew his amendment. Instead, after consulting the Opposition, two new safeguards were introduced without impinging on the independence of magistrates.
The new amendment would allow the suspect identified in the citizen request to be notified and given the chance of contesting the allegation. It also introduced the right to appeal a magistrate’s decision to proceed or not with an inquiry. These safeguards, introduced to prevent an Italian-style political purge feared by Tonio Borg, are those still in place today. Additionally, the law was amended to ensure that the magistrate who will eventually carry out the inquiry is drawn by lots to avoid forum shopping. This proviso is also in place today.
Reversal of roles
Ironically, 19 years later, the roles of the two major political parties have been reversed.
Now, it is Labour Prime Minister Robert Abela who wants to restrict the manner by which ordinary citizens can request magisterial inquiries while the Nationalist Opposition is insisting this is a dangerous move that threatens democracy.
The PN has said it will use all means at its disposal, including street protests, to oppose any such move by the government.
Abela claims the judicial tool is being used by people like lawyer Jason Azzopardi and NGO Repubblika to carry out political witch hunts. He even used the word “persecution”, which Tonio Borg had used in 2006. Abela calls it abuse of the system and an attempt to destabilise the country by stifling the administration.
Over the Christmas holidays, Azzopardi single-handedly filed five separate requests for inquiries to be held into what he claims is abusive behaviour by public and elected officials.
Gozo Minister Clint Camilleri features as a suspect in three inquiries, one of which also features his wife, who works at Transport Malta’s Gozo office, while the other two implicate Economy Minister Silvio Schembri and the CEO of the Lands Authority, respectively. The inquiries follow another two Azzopardi had requested last summer into alleged rackets at LESA and Identity Malta respectively.
So far, the government has made no concrete proposals as to how it intends to amend the law. Nonetheless, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard was quick on the ball to present the First Reading of the Bill in parliament after the Christmas recess. The Bill itself remains under wraps and the Opposition, in an unorthodox move called a division on the First Reading, forcing a vote to take place at a later stage. It will be the first vote in a string of other votes to be taken until the Bill is approved.
Protecting public servants
But on Sunday 12 January, the Prime Minister upped the ante, insisting the government will also enact legislation to ensure civil servants investigated for alleged crimes carried out in the course of their professional duties would only be subject to prosecution in their professional rather than personal capacity. Once again, no detail was provided.
It was a reaction to the fact that three permanent secretaries were charged with criminal wrongdoing following the conclusion of the Vitals inquiry. Additionally, the permanent secretary for the Gozo Ministry is one of the people identified in Azzopardi’s latest requests for magisterial inquiries linked to the ministry.
It is an open secret that the prosecution of permanent secretaries in the Vitals case has caused unease within the public administration.
Abela’s latest proposal is an attempt to unshackle the administration by offering its top brass some form of protection but the intensification of the political rhetoric suggests something more.
Where are the fascists?
A battle on magisterial inquiries and the protection of civil servants is hardly the stuff that excites ordinary people. But it evidently suits Abela’s political agenda to use the occasion to associate the PN with Jason Azzopardi and Repubblika, whom he describes as extremists.
The Prime Minister and his entourage will try and depict PN leader Bernard Grech as a hostage to these ‘extremist’ elements. Abela’s strategy is partly buoyed by Azzopardi’s recent faux pas of having accused Cabinet Secretary Ryan Spagnol of wrongdoing when he worked at Identity Malta only to admit the claim was false and apologised for it in court.
However, any attempt to stifle magisterial inquiries could also be interpreted as a sign of lack of trust in the independence of magistrates – the same argument the Labour Opposition used in 2006. This will be a harder nut to crack within judicial and legal circles.
Whether this battle will gain the Prime Minister and the Labour Party any brownie points with the electorate is debatable. Abela has painstakingly insisted over the past days the reform will not stifle justice but prevent abuse.
But with history doing a full circle, it does leave you wondering where the ‘fascists’ have pitched their tent today.