Prime Minister Robert Abela has said he was informed that Joseph Muscat is not under investigation in connection with any crime but that the police had asked the former prime minister to make a statement.
This declaration, and the circumstances surrounding Muscat’s interrogation, raise several issues that merit attention.
First, Abela was careful what to tell journalists when asked about the matter. If he felt he needed to let the country know that his predecessor had simply been asked a few questions by the police, he should also have informed the public what Muscat was asked about.
Transparency demands that Abela is open about what Muscat was briefed about and whether such briefings are routine. It is our former prime minister who was being questioned after all. In a normal country, this would have sent shockwaves across society.
In such delicate matters, being economical with the truth can only give rise to doubts and suspicions. Abela, it appears, is yet to understand that.
Evidence has emerged, before both a court and an independent inquiry, about what Muscat may have known about the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Abela declared he would continue to follow court proceedings and then decide accordingly. As a lawyer/politician, he is surely able to make a distinction between criminal and political responsibility.
In crime, the police investigate and prosecute if sufficient evidence is available and then it is up to the courts to adjudicate. However, the prime minister need not await further developments to make sure that all his colleagues, even if they are “just” MPs, shoulder their political responsibilities.
When Muscat was prime minister, the buck eventually stopped at his desk. Now it is Abela who must carry the can.
The testimony presented so far in the murder case should have been an eye-opener to the police: some government officials will have no hesitation about using to their own advantage information that is in their possession, even if it means perverting the course of justice.
Muscat must also stop insulting people’s intelligence by trying to play down his interrogation
Muscat must also stop insulting people’s intelligence by trying to play down his interrogation. He insists that being given a caution is standard police practice.
If a person, a former prime minister to boot, is summoned to police headquarters, accompanied by his lawyer, is given a police caution before being interrogated for 90 minutes, and gives a statement, there must be very good reason for it.
The Police Act demands that “prior to any questioning of a person suspected of having committed an offence, a warning or caution... shall be given”.
When Muscat left police headquarters on August 21, he declared he was not a suspect in the Caruana Galizia murder investigation but he failed to say he had been given a formal police caution.
This important fact was only revealed a few days later when police inspector Kurt Zahra, from the homicide unit, was testifying in the compilation of evidence against Yorgen Fenech, accused of commissioning the blogger’s murder.
It is common knowledge that being interrogated under caution usually means the person has been warned that anything they say can be used against them in court.
Once the police felt they should caution him, it is evident Muscat was asked about matters that could incriminate him in the eyes of the law.
Abela has some tough decisions to make.