The separation of powers between the main institutions of the state – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary – ensure they function independently. In countries with a parliamentary democracy, like ours, the good administration of justice is, or should be, a given.
When a government takes or appears to be taking action that could somehow impinge on the effective separation of powers or exercise influence on the judiciary, trouble looms.
Just look at what happened when the Netanyahu government in Israel tried to enact a law that removed the power of both the supreme court and the lower courts to annul government decisions deemed “extremely unreasonable”.
The proposal led to mass nationwide protests and, thankfully, the country’s supreme court struck down the controversial judicial reform.
St Augustine had warned: “If you remove justice, what are kingdoms [read governments in today’s times] if not organised brigandage?” In the 12th century, philosopher John of Salisbury declared: “Between a tyrant and a prince there is this single or chief difference, that the latter obeys the law and rules the people by its dictates, accounting himself as but their servant.”
Speaking on the right to good administration and the rule of law, former chief justice Vince De Gaetano stated what to many is the obvious when he said that justice and good governance go hand in hand.
Governance, the former European Court of Human Rights judge stressed, “should be based on laws and… governmental power should be subject to control…”
In view of his legal training, Robert Abela should, of course, know all this. Which makes it even more baffling how he could, one Sunday morning, announce he asked the justice minister to conclude a reform on magisterial inquiries.
What made the prime minister see red was a request by former Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi for a magisterial inquiry into an alleged criminal racket involving Gozo minister Clint Camilleri and his wife.
He accused Azzopardi and “the extremist faction of the Nationalist Party” of abusing the system in place, adding he has had enough.
Abela thinks he can decide when a citizen can or cannot exercise the right granted by law to ask the judiciary to look into cases of possible wrongdoing. Just like he arrogates to himself the power to tell magistrates how long they should take to conclude an inquiry. Or when to transmit the findings to the attorney general.
Of course, nothing stops the prime minister or his government from reacting – even forcefully – to allegations and accusations that can have serious political consequences, as in this case. They have every right to defend themselves.
However, the clear red line between political action and the course of justice must be respected at all times.
Abela is dragging his feet to implement the recommendations made in the Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry to strengthen the role of journalists.
The government has made a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act that is meant to facilitate the citizen’s right to access official information. We have seen too many examples where the prime minister shamelessly defended blatant wrongdoing.
Now, because he realises the citizens’ right to push for magisterial oversight when all other institutions look the other way is taking root, Abela has no qualms publicly declaring he wants that stopped.
The Nationalist Party was correct when it commented: “Only those who fear the truth and justice behave the way Robert Abela is behaving.”