In my article relating to the Egrant report, I asserted that, as matters stand, it is not unreasonable to believe that the order given by a magistrate to the commissioner of police to investigate Karl Cini, of Nexia BT fame, for perjury and misleading the inquiry into the ownership of the infamous Egrant Inc. has been ignored.
I have not traced any public announcements by the police’s representative that the magistrate’s orders have been followed and that Cini has been duly investigated, let alone arraigned in furtherance of the Egrant report’s conclusions.
Readers will remember that the magistrate not only ordered the investigation into Cini’s failures to tell the truth but also emphasised that Cini‘s testimony was contradicted by independent forensic experts engaged to assist in compiling and discerning expert evidence.
In layman’s terms, the magistrate made it very clear that he did not believe him.
Readers will also remember that the magistrate ordered that investigations leading to possible prosecution should be taken against Jonathan Ferris and Maria Efimova and that, in this regard, the commissioner of police zealously acquiesced.
In the circumstances, therefore, and failing a declaration by Police Commissioner Angelo Gafà that Cini was investigated and that the magistrate’s conclusions were found to be erroneous in his regard, a person of average intellect could reasonably conclude that the police commissioner is defying a court order and refusing to thoroughly investigate and prosecute Cini for lying under oath.
It is, therefore, legitimate to query the behaviour of our highest-ranking police officer. Why is he risking his career, reputation and personal freedom in defying a court order? Why is he stonewalling such an important matter? How does his behaviour fit in with his oath of office?
As citizens, are we rendered helpless against the apparent inactivity of the commissioner of police and the attorney general?
I do not subscribe to this view; various players can do something – and have a duty to do so – to ensure that the magistrate’s directions are obeyed and justice meted out.
The first obvious person is former magistrate Aaron Bugeja himself. He issued the order before he was made a judge. Could he argue that now, since he is not a magistrate but a judge, following up on his own orders is not his remit? He could, and probably jurists would debate this point till the cows come home, but this would not be in keeping with the impression that people in the legal profession have of him. He is known as being punctilious and thorough in his administration of the law.
As author of the Egrant report and by his order to the commissioner of police, he can, with discretion, through the proper administrative legal channels, ensure that his orders are respected and followed. He can do this through the intervention of the office of the chief justice and/or the senior magistrate. On a personal level and on the basis of deserved professional pride, it must be infuriating for the judge to have a legitimate order manifestly ignored.
The magistrate also emphasised that Karl Cini’s testimony was contradicted by independent forensic experts- Franco Vassallo
Only recently we have seen police action against former prime minister Joseph Muscat following a magistrate’s order and not following a voluntary police investigation.
It was, after all, the same judge who declared on page 10 of the Egrant report that: “The Executive Police, on the other hand, must address the orders given by the Inquiring Magistrate without delay.”
The attorney general, under Chapter 90 of the laws of Malta, is indicated as the chief prosecuting officer and has the authority, and duty, to demand that the commissioner of police investigates and issues any criminal charges. Admittedly, in this case it would be strange for the attorney general to demand that the commissioner of police obeys a court order to investigate and eventually issue charges.
The attorney general should, in reality, consider charging the commissioner of police with the crime of dereliction of duty and possible contempt of court. If, as stated above, the commissioner of police disagrees with the conclusions arrived at by the magistrate, then it is up to the attorney general to decide whether to proceed further.
If the attorney general agrees with the commissioner of police that the inquiring magistrate (now judge) was wrong, then the attorney general must draw up a written report to the President of the Republic giving detailed reasons for the decision.
To date, no such report is known to exist, so we can assume that no such disagreement exists.
Journalists have a duty to their readers and may, at the first opportunity, ask the police commissioner whether Cini has been investigated following the court order and whether he will be arraigned. The usual stock answer refusing information, quoting section 120 of Chapter 164 of the Laws of Malta, would be, in the circumstances, insulting and legally unacceptable, because both the suspect and the offence had been identified and made public by the magistrate.
MPs can, through parliamentary questions, ask the minister of the interior and the prime minister about the conduct of the commissioner of police and whether his inaction should be investigated and/or referred to the Police Board.
Muscat and his wife, the apparent perpetual victims, should show consistency and demand that the commissioner of police obeys the court order and investigates Cini so as to uncover who was behind the plot to tarnish their reputation by alleging the ownership of a trust set-up coincidentally similar to the ones simultaneously set up for Muscat’s then colleagues, the disgraced Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri.
Finally, if none of the above acts – and I’m not holding my breath, the report is three-and-a-half years old – then it would then be up to us private citizens or civil society organisations such as Repubblika to act. After all, wasn’t the inquiry declared to be of national importance and paid out of public funds?
Mr Commissioner of Police, we will not let go.
Franco Vassallo, lawyer