Request for university reinstatement

I refer to the item entitled "Commission finds no corruption in university appointment" (November 18).

I deny categorically that I kept insisting on being reinstated as head of department for life. That is a travesty of the truth. On March 28, 1992 I wrote to the prime minister: "I am aware of the provisions of the Education Act 1988 and I have never made any claim for permanent headship..." On the other hand, my claim for reinstatement made under the old law in 1988 cannot be altered because the law has changed.

The central issue was not the headship at all. The crucial issue was my request to be reinstated in the same way that my colleagues in the Faculty of Medicine, viz. Professors Bannister, Fenech and Griffiths were reinstated. The position of professor and head was, at that time, one and indivisible. They were reinstated as such. I asked for no more and for no less. In January 1988, under the old law, my request was refused and stands refused up to the present moment despite the fact that this refusal was, in 1993, declared an injustice by the Commission for the Investigation of Injustices.

There has been no real "impasse". It has been just a one-sided, continual refusal.

As I was seeking reinstatement and not a job, offers made to me for employment in positions other than the one I had held originally (some of these through well meaning intermediaries) are only relevant to the issue insofar as these offers were themselves affirmations of the refusal of my request for reinstatement.

The Commission for the Investigation of Injustices stated that the obvious remedy could not be applied because in the meantime Prof. Anthony Serracino Inglott had been appointed. So much for what the Permanent Commission against Corruption now states that "These decisions with regard to Dr Anthony Serracino Inglott did not prejudice Prof. Jaccarini's position". On the other hand it should be quite clear that had I been reinstated, my 18 years academic experience as full professor and head in two universities would have "prejudiced" (my junior) Dr Anthony Serracino Inglott's position.

It is not correct "That Prof. Peter Serracino Inglott did not participate in decisions involving his brother". The refusal of my request for reinstatement was made during the university council meeting of January 27, 1988. When the corruption investigation was under chairman Dr A. Camilleri, as all parties were given access to available documents, I saw the minutes of this council meeting.

My request for reinstatement was ahead in the agenda of an item regarding Dr Anthony Serracino Inglott's appointment as acting head till the end of the year when the new law would come into effect, a decision which, if made, would completely block my chances for reinstatement.

Had my request been granted, Dr A. Serracino Inglott's appointment could not have been made. So the decision regarding my request directly impinged on the outcome of his brother's appointment.

Yet, the rector, Prof. P. Serracino Inglott, not only stayed on at the meeting but he also presented a draft reply refusing my request for reinstatement, which was approved, and no one questioned his family interest. The minutes state that only afterwards, when my request was refused and when his brother's appointment came up for discussion, did he leave the meeting. That was the meeting which sealed my fate.

Let us be honest. An injustice was committed. Someone must have been responsible for it. Someone must have benefited. I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.