Soon after Times of Malta published details about the people behind the secret company Macbridge, the police commissioner received two letters asking him to investigate.
One was from Prime Minister Robert Abela, referring to what Times of Malta and Reuters had reported and asking the police chief “to ensure” all allegations were “immediately investigated”, unless that was already happening.
Police Commissioner Angelo Gafà also received a letter from Robert Aquilina, president of civil society movement Repubblika, recalling that, in April 2018, the media had published an e-mail from Nexia BT’s Karl Cini showing that Macbridge would be forwarding millions of euros to companies owed by Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri. Repubblika asked Gafà to find out why, over the past three years, the police had failed to investigate Macbridge.
Both letters raise the issue of whether the institutions are working.
The implication by Repubblika is crystal clear: for three long years the police had sat on a very serious allegation and did nothing about it.
But the fact it is asking Gafà to investigate why the police failed to probe the e-mail also seems to indicate that Repubblika is, at least, willing to put its trust in him and give him a chance to prove himself, perhaps encouraged by the developments and arraignments of the past days.
The painstaking work of the police financial crime unit has paid dividends and all eyes are now on it to continue delivering. It, therefore, deserves all the encouragement it can get, both from the public and, of course, from the powers that be.
More importantly, it must be given all the resources, of whatever type, that it requires to carry out its task, an unenviable one that can even be dangerous to those directly involved and their families too.
At face value, Abela’s letter may justifiably elicit an angry reaction, especially bearing in mind his repeated declarations that the institutions work and yield effective results and that the rule of law prevails.
If that is truly the case, why does he have to tell the police to investigate? Are they not able to decide when they need to investigate? And why publish the letter, some would rightly ask.
Still, the prime minister could have had other things on his mind when he drafted and decided to publish that letter.
Perhaps his main message was not to ‘authorise’ or ‘order’ the police to investigate but, rather, to make it publicly known that the police have his full backing… in contrast with what used to happen until some time ago.
That would be commendable but hardly adequate. It is, of course, satisfying to have a prime minister who unequivocally declares he expects every man and institution to do their duty without fear or favour. However, he must, in the same way, also raise the bar of standards in public life.
He has to ensure that political responsibility is fully shouldered and that those facing accusations, or even mere allegations, of political misconduct should take a step back and relinquish their office.
This applies to both politicians as well as to those occupying top positions in public entities.
The institutions do not suddenly start working smoothly and the rule of law does not prevail merely by amending laws, devising new systems of appointing people to institutions or even by dint of a few prosecutions. The mark of real change lies in consistent political behaviour.
What would really encourage the institutions in their resolve to work effectively is to see the prime minister himself cleaning out his Augean stables.