In his recent piece entitled ‘Labour versus court scrutiny: a tradition’, Tonio Borg presents a historical analysis that overlooks a critical episode in Malta’s recent past.

For many years, our country was deprived of a government – especially during Borg’s own tenure as a central figure in Nationalist administrations – capable of ensuring that the justice sector underwent the necessary reforms to safeguard the integrity of legal processes.

This neglect has had dire consequences, leaving us vulnerable to miscarriages of justice and wrongful releases based on procedural shortcomings.

A glaring example of this failure is the citizens’ right to access legal representation during police interrogations.

The repercussions on society and victims are felt time and again, as we witness juries confronted with multiple statements of admission, only to see the accused released on the grounds that their rights were violated.

It is the unfortunate reality that Nationalist governments have shown a troubling complacency towards such matters, leading to increased prosecution failures.

Even with legal professionals like Franco Debono advocating for necessary reforms, the Nationalist Party remained resistant to change.

Today, as we face a manifestly abusive situation that could result in further prosecution failures, the current government must not mirror the complacency of its predecessors. The call for reforms in the realm of justice is not merely a political stance; it is a moral imperative that transcends party lines.

The concept of justice reforms stands in stark contrast to the legacy of Nationalist governments, which the opposition now clings to, regardless of the consequences.

The same political figures, sometimes masquerading as academics, who resisted the introduction of essential laws – such as those governing party financing and whistleblowing – and who failed to address legal social problems like protected leases and agricultural leases, are the ones now attempting to drag our country back into the past.

During their tenure, these individuals allowed civil rights and liberties to languish in a medieval state. In an era where the government was either indifferent or trapped in the ultra-conservative mentality of certain political figures, citizens faced legal persecution rather than protection of their rights.

If Borg seeks to provide a historical context for inquiry reform, he should reflect on his speech during parliamentary discussions nearly 20 years ago.

In that context, it became evident that the very controls he proposed would have placed absolute discretionary power over investigations in the hands of politically appointed officials. His plan required the permission of the chief justice to initiate a magistrate’s inquiry:

“Qegħdin nipproponu wkoll li meta inkjesta maġisterjali tibda mhux fuq inizjattiva tal-pulizija jew ta’ l-avukat ġenerali, ikun hemm bżonn il-permess tal-prim imħallef. L-imħallef jawtorizza li ssir inkjesta maġisterjali anke mhux fuq talba ta’ l-avukat ġenerali jew tal-pulizija. Nemmnu li din hija xi ħaġa eċċezzjonali li ssir. Fil-fatt saret tliet darbiet safejn naf jien, u naħseb li tajjeb li jkun hemm ċerta kontroll sabiex tibda inkjesta maġisterjali.”

(“We are also proposing that when a magisterial inquiry is not initiated on the initiative of the police or the attorney general, this would only be done on the explicit approval of the chief justice. The judge would be at liberty to appoint a magisterial inquiry even if this is not mandated by the advocate general or the police. We believe that such circumstances are exceptional. In fact, to my knowledge, this has only transpired three times, and I think it is good to have certain control on the initiation of a magisterial inquiry.”)

The dangers of such a plan are more evident now than ever. A few years after Borg’s suggestion, a Nationalist government appointed Silvio Camilleri as chief justice.

Had Borg’s proposal been enacted, the absolute control over whether an inquiry could proceed would have rested for years with Camilleri, an alarming prospect given the recent rampage of public comments which culminated in insults against Labour, branding us as arrogant and incompetent and characterising this government as stupid and spineless.

Today, as we witness the fallout from the actions of the former chief justice, it is clear that the Nationalist government’s intentions were to stifle the very rights they now claim to defend. Borg attempted to convince parliament that it would not be the government controlling this right but, rather, the head of the judiciary. However, this assertion fails to hold water when we consider the appointment of Camilleri at the helm of the judiciary. This stark reality underscores the hypocrisy of the current opposition’s position.

As the government engages in parliamentary discussions with an open mind, it must not be swayed by lessons from those who, during their time in power, failed to uphold the justice system. The consequences of their actions continue to resonate within our society and it is imperative that we do not allow history to repeat itself.

In conclusion, genuine justice reforms are essential for the integrity of our legal system. The past should serve as a lesson, not a blueprint, for our future. It is time to move beyond the rhetoric of political posturing and work towards meaningful change that upholds the principles of justice for all.

Only through a collective commitment to reform can we ensure that the mistakes of the past do not define our future.

Jonathan Attard

Jonathan Attard is the Minister for Justice and Reform of the Construction Sector.