Jonathan Attard dodged questions about the contents of a planned magisterial inquiry reform, as he warned against "fishing expeditions" intended to carry out "political persecutions".
Speaking on Andrew Azzopardi’s radio show on RTK 103, the justice minister said the government does not want to hamper anybody’s right to trigger a magisterial inquiry but it was to make the process “more responsible”.
Private individuals have a right to ask the courts to investigate alleged crimes without involving the police by appealing directly to a magistrate.
However, after lawyer and former PN MP Jason Azzopardi requested several inquiries of this nature, Prime Minister Robert Abela ordered to minister to reform the system to curb what he called “abuse”.
Discussing this reform on Saturday, Attard refused to elaborate on what changes are planned for the systems, despite host Azzopardi and fellow guest shadow just minister Karol Aquilina asking multiple times.
“We are not going to take away anybody's right, we want to strengthen your rights but we want to make the system more responsible,” he said.
“When this law was first formalised it was supposed to have certain safeguards which are currently not being respected. Primarily the rules say that such inquiries should be opened as an exception and not a rule, but I fear that presently this is not the case.”
Azzopardi countered that even if claims of criminal wrongdoing are unfounded, the judiciary is competent enough to distinguish when a situation merits an inquiry and when it doesn't.
Attard claimed that presently, inquiries are being opened on the strength of someone writing a letter to conduct a “fishing expedition”. He also charged that people filing such inquiries are “forum shopping” and wait to file a case when the magistrate on duty is one they know to be more amenable to their cause.
“We are all for making the system stronger but it should be used to seek justice not political persecution,” he said.
Aquilina said that with this logic the minister was effectively discrediting the judiciary and openly declaring that he does not trust them.
“I am sure that, should such a case come in front of any member of the judiciary if there is no basis for an investigation they will refuse the request and if there is merit they will conduct an inquiry. I don’t think anyone is being abused by having an inquiry,” Aquilina said.
Pressing Attard to about the contents of the reform again, Aquilina speculated that most likely new rules would probably require individuals to come forward with a higher standard of evidence.
“This would be a bit antithetical because an inquiry should be there to preserve evidence in the first place,” he said.
While Attard scoffed at Aquilina he neither confirmed nor denied whether the reform intends to proceed in this direction.
Instead, Attard hinted that those seeking a magisterial inquiry may have to exhaust their other options with the police first.
“In any instance, I think the first thing you should do is to go to the police. The victim does not have a right to decide who investigates. Then if you feel the police investigation has shortcomings, you can remedy that situation but you do not get to maliciously choose to bypass the police,” he said.
On the topic of inquiries, Attard and Aquilina also rehashed their position on whether the recently concluded inquiry into the offshore company 17 Black and the Panama Papers should be published.
Attard maintained that it is at the Attorney General's discretion whether to publish the inquiry or not, but there is ultimately no legal obligation to do so.
Moreover, revealing her hand too early could tip people off that there are plans to charge them, he said.
But Aquilina argued that the public interest, especially when the main shortcoming is suspected to be fraudulent use of public funds, overrides these concerns and that the public has a right to know what this investigation concluded.