Minister in the dock... justice system on trial

Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici is the focus of tomorrow’s censure vote in Parliament but is the entire justice system on trial? Analysis by Christian Peregin.

Some have dismissed the Opposition’s censure motion against Dr Mifsud Bonnici as an attempt to put another spoke in the government’s punctured wheel, giving PN backbencher Franco Debono a chance to vote out his Cabinet nemesis.

The problems he inherited are ‘endemic’

But while such intentions may have appeared to observers as transparent in the Opposition’s motion against Malta’s EU ambassador Richard Cachia Caruana, the one on Dr Mifsud Bonnici might not be so easily disregarded.

This is because the 1,300-word motion by Labour MPs José Herrera and Michael Falzon is a blow-by-blow indictment of the situation in justice and home affairs.

And unlike the charges levelled against Mr Cachia Caruana, which were rubbished by the Prime Minister, the home affairs and justice concerns have often been in the spotlight.

The Labour motion, filed in December when Dr Mifsud Bonnici was Minister of Justice and Home Affairs (he has since lost the justice portfolio), starts by declaring the situation as “precarious, unsustainable and inundated with endemic problems”.

It adds that the two sectors are in conflict with each other and are being handled with “incompetence” and “inaction”. The motion then elaborates on 15 key points that paint a dire picture of the entire system.

The motion says that important laws uch as the Whistleblower’s Act are still gathering dust, members of the judiciary are boycotting State functions, legal aid is not provided in the civil court and the prison is rife with drugs.

Laws that breach human rights or the Constitution have not been amended, suspects still do not have the full right to a lawyer and nothing is being done to stem unacceptable court delays, especially in the Family Court.

Meanwhile, criminals are going free because police files and statements go missing or because the Criminal Code is not adequately updated, while the forensics lab is crying out for investment, the motion adds.

Over the past five months, few of these problems seem to have been resolved and, if Dr Falzon’s speech last Wednesday is anything to go by, the situation has only worsened.

Crucially, even if Labour’s motion is a cynical ploy to capitalise on Dr Debono’s abhorrence of Dr Mifsud Bonnici, the issues appeal to ordinary people who are often at the receiving end of an unjust justice system.

But does this mean Dr Mifsud Bonnici should shoulder all the blame and resign? This is where it gets tricky. As Labour itself admits, the problems he inherited are “endemic” and have long existed in Malta’s justice system.

It is true that Dr Mifsud Bonnici was appointed parliamentary secretary in the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs in 2003, but he only gotin the driving seat four years ago.

Nor was this legislature a walk in the park: 2008 saw the highest number of migrant arrivals ever registered, while 2011 saw the minister undergoing major intestinal surgery and a complex Libyan conflict exploding on Malta’s doorstep.

Arguably, if Dr Mifsud Bonnici had really been “working like a dog”, as he assured, some of the problems could have been solved. But unlike Transport Minister Austin Gatt with public transport or Environment Minister Mario de Marco with the planning authority, Dr Mifsud Bonnici was not tasked with any major reform.

It is open to question, therefore, whether it is fair to blame him for failing to deliver reform he was never told to carry out. The Labour motion also seems to blame Dr Mifsud Bonnici for the inherent conflict between the home affairs and justice portfolios.

This has already been resolved in January’s Cabinet reshuffle, but even had it persisted, it may be asked whether Dr Mifsud Bonnici should be getting the blame for a portfolio designed and handed to him by the Prime Minister.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici is not facing the censure motion because of any major unethical, criminal or malicious act – Dr Falzon himself made it clear that Dr Mifsud Bonnici was a good man. He is being taken to task because there are problems in justice and home affairs that he failed to solve.

As former Labour Minister Lino Spiteri argued in his column in The Sunday Times, with such logic the Opposition could table similar motions “regularly against every minister throughout any legislature”.

Resignations should be called for much more serious matters than actual or alleged operational shortcomings, he said.

And even if Dr Mifsud Bonnici was particularly ineffective, it must be pointed out that he had already paid a significant price when the Prime Minister handed the justice portfolio to Chris Said, who is already pushing strict targets and deadlines.

Ultimately, not every minister has a backbencher scrutinising his every move and giving the Opposition reason to believe he would support a censure motion.

Perhaps that is what works against Dr Mifsud Bonnici most of all.However, there is another matter that creates difficulties for him: his reluctance to defend himself.

The Times has regularly asked to interview Dr Mifsud Bonnici or given him a chance to react to each point in the Opposition motion (and the more constructive one filed by Dr Debono last November). However, he has consistently turned down such requests.

It is this refusal to respond that could lead people into thinking he is ineffective.

Just as he sweeps criticism under the rug, is he also digging his head in the sand on issues affecting his ministry? This is perhaps impossible to verify.

At 52, Dr Mifsud Bonnici is currently facing the toughest moment of his 14-year political career which, in part thanks to his family heritage – his father President Emeritus Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, and his uncle, former parliamentary secretary Antoine Mifsud Bonnici – has been relatively smooth.

His fate will now be decided by a volatile MP from his own party who is eager to see the back of him. But even if Dr Mifsud Bonnici is forced to resign, the problems in justice and home affairs are not likely to disappear with him.