A good prescription

Writing in one of my columns several years ago I argued against whatever logic supports time barring in our and in many other legal systems. It is a simple fact that something that is wrong today remains so despite the passage of time. The issue was not taken up, least of all by the political class. It did surface, however, towards the end of April, in the House of Representatives.

The House was discussing a bill to amend the Civil Code. The opposition argued in favour of removing or restricting time barring - prescription - in certain cases. The government would have none of it. The justice minister did clarify how legal prescription works, particularly that it does not begin to run from the day one breaks the law, but from the time this is discovered.

He also dismissed the opposition's point among other things on the grounds that with the passage of time memories grow dim. True enough, but that is hardly a sound case against removing or restricting prescription. The law courts have an overhang of cases that were commenced years - sometimes decades - ago. Many of us have direct experience, while being conscious of the ravages on the memory inflicted by advancing age.

The whole system of our justice is maddeningly slow, accentuating whatever injustice was suffered and which led to legal action. Justice delayed is justice denied is not a currency in wide circulation in Malta.

Now the question of prescription has become a sharp talking point outside any mere columnist's opinion, outside even the grave sphere of the highest institution in the land. The opposition leader, capturing the public mood, has zeroed in on the matter and demanded that prescription should be lifted for politicians and the judiciary.

What makes him right is not the context of accusations against the chief justice and a judge, both of whom have since resigned, and are facing charges. The true context of the justification is moral and ethical. I personally hold that there should not be prescription in any case and for anyone. I continue to argue, without standing in judgement on anyone, that a wrongdoing - an action against the law - does not alter its character and nature with the passing of the years.

One is not talking about wearing a daring string bikini or exposing a hairy chest away from the seaside when the norms of the country have not evolved enough to take that in one's stride. The issue concerns law breaking, in whatever context.

It makes much sense, at least, to review prescription for those who are responsible for the running and safeguarding of the state and the citizen according to the democratic separation of powers. Particularly those who hold or have held government office, specified categories in public office, and the judiciary. Politicians and members of the judiciary are the most easily identifiable.

It would make eminent sense for the political class to express themselves on the issue, as calmly as possible. The discussion should also be held in a non-partisan manner, as well as with political wisdom. For if one looks closely enough, it may be surprising how few cupboards do not contain a skeleton or two in them.

The proposal should be to review prescription with a view to lifting it - also regarding those who, like me, are no longer in any public office, no matter how much time has passed since we occupied it.