The rule of law, separation of powers and the independence of institutions are essential ingredients in a democracy. However, the realities of political power can be different and leaders demonstrating authoritarian inclinations are sadly not uncommon.
Some politicians act as though they are beyond scrutiny, positioning themselves as unchallengeable authorities. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán exemplifies this authoritarian drift, while Poland’s recent turmoil under the Law and Justice party – though now easing – still leaves a legacy of democratic unease.
Meanwhile Benjamin Netanyahu’s so-called ‘reforms’ seem designed to cripple the judiciary’s ability to check executive power. And we all know the way Donald Trump is trying to dismantle centuries of democracy in the US.
Against this backdrop, it is deeply troubling to hear Robert Abela speak as though he can unilaterally absolve individuals still facing court proceedings. Such rhetoric not only undermines judicial independence but signals a worrying disregard for the rule of law.
There have already been too many occasions when Abela unilaterally absolved colleagues of political responsibility, even when all indications proved otherwise.
Things became more complicated and serious when he started to intervene in the court’s work. Of course, he has every right to express disagreement with judgments or court conclusions. The courts are far from perfect. But expecting to tell the judiciary how to do their work, the time they should take to decide and when such decisions should be announced is reprehensible.
Last Wednesday, Abela had no qualms declaring a senior civil servant “innocent” even though the court case against him in connection with the scandalous hospitals’ concession deal is still in progress.
The prime minister decided to reinstate Ronald Mizzi as permanent secretary – now serving in his office – on the basis of how the court case was proceeding in his regard and on grounds of presumption of innocence.
Mizzi must be presumed innocent and, on this point, the prime minister is correct. However, he is also facing serious charges of a criminal nature and it is only the court that can decide whether he is guilty or innocent
The Nationalist Party rightly deemed the decision an “unacceptable interference in an ongoing judicial process”. It also noted that, by reappointing Mizzi, the prime minister “is effectively issuing a declaration of innocence in his regard – a role which neither belongs to nor is permitted by the powers granted to the prime minister under our country’s laws”.
Mizzi, it should be borne in mind, had voluntarily resigned his post of permanent secretary at the economy ministry after the magistrates’ court found there was enough reason to indict him.
Declaring the deal null and void, the court of appeal had observed that “senior government officials” were complicit in the deal. Earlier, the auditor general had identified Mizzi as being partly responsible for governance failures.
Mizzi must be presumed innocent and, on this point, the prime minister is correct. However, he is also facing serious charges of a criminal nature and it is only the court that can decide whether he is guilty or innocent.
If Abela is basing Mizzi’s reinstatement on the principle of presumption of innocence, then all those who resigned, were suspended or suspended themselves in similar circumstances – as is the case of central bank governor Edward Scicluna – will expect not to be discriminated against.
Abela needs to look well before he leaps unless, that is, he wants to make himself increasingly appear as some sort of a self-declared supreme authority.
History is dotted with attempts to centralise power but that does not mean that what is happening even in today’s democracies is not worrying.
The road to authoritarianism is rarely marked by grand announcements; more often, it is paved by a slow erosion of boundaries. Malta cannot afford to sleepwalk into such a future.