Someone please help me understand. Jason Azzopardi has just filed a 75-page request for a magisterial inquiry concerning – incredible, I know – corruption in Gozo. Robert Abela says Azzopardi has committed perjury. Yet, the prime minister isn’t rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of seeing his arch-critic criminally prosecuted for false testimony.
Remember the process involved.
First, the magistrate must accept that there is, on the face of it, a case for an inquiry to preserve evidence of corruption. Second, if the magistrate agrees, the people accused can lodge an appeal to be heard by a judge. Third, if the judge agrees with the magistrate, the inquiry is opened. Fourth, if upon investigation the magistrate concludes there is a case, it is forwarded to the attorney general, who will need to decide if it is strong enough to take to court or if the police need to investigate further. Fifth, if the case goes to court, the attorney general must win the case at every stage of the process.
If Azzopardi lied under oath, every stage is fraught with personal danger. Beginning with the magistrate, someone might recommend that Azzopardi be prosecuted for false testimony.
Even if he dodges the bullet, Azzopardi can be sued by the people he’s named, including the Gozo minister, Clint Camilleri, accused of corruption, and the minister’s wife, accused of professional misconduct that could be legally construed as money laundering.
Besides, if the magistrate comes up empty handed and decides the request was frivolous or malicious, that’s Azzopardi’s credibility gone. Future accusations by him won’t be believed.
Abela should be dancing with joy. Instead, he’s hopping with anger. He’s accusing Azzopardi of abusing the right of ordinary citizens to request an inquiry.
In theory, abuse – a flurry of baseless requests – is possible. When the law was introduced by the Nationalist government in 2006, the original draft included the need for a go-ahead by the chief justice as additional protection against abuse. The Labour opposition objected to a magistrate’s decision being vetoed. As a compromise, the right of appeal to the criminal court was given to the targets of the inquiry.
So the law does have an in-built mechanism against abuse. We also know what inquiries Azzopardi has requested. Which of them is abusive?
Azzopardi was the lawyer for the NGO Repubblika when it requested an inquiry into the hospitals deal. Was that inquiry baseless?
Azzopardi has himself requested two other inquiries. In July, he made the case for an investigation into an alleged scam concerning some 18,000 ID cards issued on the basis of forged documents. The request was upheld by a magistrate.
The home affairs minister, Byron Camilleri, said he welcomed the investigation. Is the prime minister now saying it isn’t welcome?
In September, Azzopardi requested an inquiry into an alleged racket in which top LESA officials colluded with private car-hire operators to transfer traffic fines imposed on local drivers onto hundreds of unsuspecting tourists. Again, request upheld.
It takes an autocrat to believe that requests to investigate the abuses of his government are the real abuse- Ranier Fsadni
It’s unclear where the abuse lies. Is it that Azzopardi has filed three requests in six months? Would the abuse disappear if Azzopardi had waited longer between one filing and another? (But then the evidence might disappear.)
If that’s the principle, then are Arnold Cassola’s frequent filings with the public standards commissioner also abusive? It would be good to know.
Is the problem that it’s always Azzopardi who requests an inquiry? It’s easy to arrange for someone else to do so. To be clear, however, so far, Azzopardi’s requests have been upheld by different magistrates. Is the prime minister saying the magistrates are in cahoots with the abuse?
Abela dates the “abuses” – or “cruel attacks” on people – back to 2013 and says they involved others besides Azzopardi. Which attacks does he have in mind and how are they linked to the citizen’s right to request magisterial inquiries?
We’re also told that, up till now, the Labour Party left these cruel attacks pass. How did Labour decide on behalf of others? Any abused individuals had every right to take action against calumny or libel or character assassination. Yet, they didn’t – even while Daphne Caruana Galizia, on other issues, was being sued left, right and centre. Without further explanation, that story doesn’t pass the smell test.
Abela says that Azzopardi’s latest request is the last straw. The justice minister has been asked to finalise, with haste, a reform of the law concerning inquiries.
Say, what? If Azzopardi’s latest request is the last straw, how come the minister was already working on a “reform”?
Perish the thought, but a suspicious mind would think the reaction to Azzopardi is just a pretext to cancel a law that challenges the prime minister’s influence over investigations.
Let’s sum up the puzzle. The prime minister should be celebrating that his arch-enemy is in legal jeopardy; instead, he’s angry. He talks about the inquiry law being abused, even though there are all kinds of legal protections against abuse. He speaks darkly about previous abuses but leaves us in the dark about which they are.
His solution? A threat to remove or trim everyone’s right because someone has allegedly abused the right. It takes an autocrat to believe that requests to investigate the abuses of his government are the real abuse.