The pen – which, Maltese journalists declared in a common act of defiance just days after Daphne Caruana Galizia’s brutal assassination six years ago, conquers fear – must keep pushing institutions and protect the ones that are willing to work.
“We stand here today to give hope to society. This attack on one of us will not stop us from shining a light where others want darkness, the attack on one of us will not muzzle us, the attack on one of us will not stop us from fulfilling our role as a watchdog to the institutions. We will stand up to intimidation, whoever it’s coming from,” journalists had pledged during a silent march in Valletta.
The independent media, joined by civil society, has kept up the pressure since.
What matters is that justice is done even in the face of submissive institutions and legal constraints that benefit the delinquents, not the rule of law.
The little action taken so far against selfish, shameless plunderers and criminals has often happened because of the pressure resulting from the fresh, more damning information that has been dug up.
The pen must continue pushing the institutions to do their duty. That requires society’s constant support and a determined effort, including by individuals.
This is now imperative because, as evidenced from the latest revelations made in Robert Aquilina’s book, Pilatus: A laundromat bank in Europe, the axis of sleaze is quick to move even on the rare occasions where an institution does its duty.
The book reproduces e-mails which show that the attorney general first decided not to prosecute two former senior officials at the defunct Pilatus Bank and then the police tried to list the reasons why that decision was made.
A magistrate had concluded there was scope for money-laundering charges to be pressed against former risk manager Antoniella Gauci and operations supervisor Mehmet Tasli.
Other officials were also mentioned by the same inquiring magistrate, however, only Pilatus Bank and its head of legal and former money laundering reporting officer were arraigned, and that was way back in September 2021.
The book quotes a source suggesting that the decision not to prosecute was made to protect Gauci “possibly, indeed probably, due to her and her family’s close political connections”.
According to the same source, her father and brother were Robert Abela’s canvassers.
Yet, neither the prime minister, nor the attorney general, nor the police commissioner felt they owed an explanation to the public. Not even a denial.
In a brief statement, the government resorted to its usual talk of allowing the autonomous institutions to do their work. This just as two of those institutions – the attorney general’s office and the police – are now suspected to have colluded to neutralise the work of another – the judiciary.
Does their silence indicate consent? Or did the government invoke the right to silence as it may incriminate itself?
We do not know, either, whether Abela felt he should summon both Victoria Buttigieg and Angelo Gafà to hear their side of the story.
That contrasts sharply with the stand he took in the case of the magisterial inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia’s death at a construction site, when he reported the magistrate to the chief justice over the length of time the inquiry was taking.
The pen has a duty to act as a watchdog on the government and the institutions, especially when these same institutions are bent on erasing their ill deeds.