A court martial is now a must

The incidents at Safi have shocked a lot of people while others have sought justification for the actions of the army. When closely examined, these incidents give rise to various important considerations not only on this one incident.

The first consideration has to do with the leadership qualities in the armed forces. The incidents can only be viewed as a colossal error of judgment by the higher echelons of the armed forces which presumably must have ordered the violent charge on the detainees. In fact, a section of the press has alleged that the commander himself was physically present during the incidents. If indeed this was not the case, he must at least have been made aware of what was about to take place.

One queries why these detainees should not have been allowed to protest in the same way and fashion as any citizen of this country.

It is superfluous to add that in accordance with our laws, such protests are not illegal so long as they are held in a peaceful manner. There seems to have been no urgent reason why this protest should have been broken up unless the armed forces did not want this protest to take place in the presence of the UNHCR official whose arrival was imminent. If this reading of the events is correct, then the action of the armed forces only served to aggravate an already difficult situation, thereby putting into question the leadership qualities of the armed forces.

If the armed forces cannot contain a peaceful protest by detainees in their charge without resorting to the use of brute force (and this in full view of the media and a visiting UNHCR official) one wonders how they will respond in an effective manner to any external threat to this country's sovereignty.

The second consideration has to do with the immediate setting up of an inquiry by the Prime Minister to investigate what has taken place. To put it succinctly, such an inquiry is simply not good enough. Though it may serve for administrative purposes, an inquiry of such a nature has the tendency of allowing the authorities to wash their dirty linen in public in the least detrimental manner and, in the process, public opinion tends to shift its attention elsewhere.

As the rule of law ought to be supreme in this country, this type of inquiry should not serve to forestall legal action which should be mandatory under the relevant legislation. In this particular instance, the soldiers whose actions were immortalised on tape and on film fall under military law in accordance with the provisions of the Malta Armed Forces Act, Cap. 220. Section 62(2) of this law is quite explicit in precluding the type of behaviour the soldiers in question have resorted to:

(2) Any person subject to military law who strikes or otherwise uses violence to, or offers violence to, any person, whether subject to military law or not, whose duty it is to apprehend him or in whose custody he is, shall be guilty of an offence against this article.

Those responsible may also be found guilty of the provisions of section 71 of Cap. 220 which lays down the following:

71. A person subject to military law who is guilty of disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind shall, on conviction by court martial, be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or any less punishment provided by this Act.

This being the case - and the specific provision of the law could not have been more explicit - one feels that the necessary procedure has to be set in motion for the institution of the court martials of the officers and soldiers who were responsible for this terrible incident.

The commander of the armed forces has no choice but to initiate the process for the setting up of these court martials without delay.

We have just witnessed the court martial and imprisonment of various individuals who were responsible for the excesses of Abu Ghraib. Undoubtedly, these individuals too had their reasons for resorting to the sordid behaviour that led to their imprisonment just as the Maltese soldiers may argue that they have been provoked by the detainees for a long time. But the rule of law does not allow for such pretexts to exculpate oneself from criminal behaviour. Thus, one expects that an administration that is committed to upholding the rule of law and the armed forces which is duty bound to defend the Constitution should likewise mete out justice to those involved in the proper manner set down by law, that is, through the institution of court martials.

Though such a task is undoubtedly an extremely unpleasant one, hopefully it could also enable the armed forces to rehabilitate their tarnished reputation as quickly and as effectively as possible and act as a deterrent for a recurrence of such acts. The upholding of the rule of law demands no less.