Three salient points emerge from the controversy in the wake of an investigation by the commissioner for standards in public life into a 2019 incident, when journalists were locked in a room at Castille for some time.
The first is that a former member of parliament, an ex-prime minister to boot, was found to be lying and to have breached the ministers’ code of ethics.
At least twice in his report, Standards Commissioner George Hyzler raises discrepancies between what Joseph Muscat told him and evidence in his possession.
At one point, the commissioner categorically discounts what Muscat had said about two men involved in the incident. Muscat declared they “had entered the press conference hall without authorisation” and “decided unilaterally to join OPM officials in asking journalists to wait until members of cabinet walked out of the room”.
Hyzler remarked that such a statement suggests the two individuals “spontaneously joined an action that they had no prior knowledge of”. If they were not supposed to be there, they should have been asked to leave, he commented, adding the claim that journalists were asked to wait is not supported by any of the evidence.
“The assignment of party loyalists as unofficial security personnel is at best incorrect and abusive. This is a serious issue that calls into question the institutional integrity of the Maltese government and the separation that should exist between state and party,” he concluded.
No wonder the government members on the standards committee, aided and abetted by the speaker, insisted the investigation should not have continued in view of a court case on the matter and wanted to stop the immediate publication of the report.
The speaker’s attitude in stifling public debate and openness is the second point that surfaces and the third is the fact that, finally, an attempt is being made to raise the bar of standards in public life and all the credit goes to the commissioner.
If there is an institution that should champion the highest possible standards in public life, it is the speaker. However, Speaker Anġlu Farrugia ruled that the investigation should not have continued since the matter was by then before the courts.
Still, as rightly pointed out by the commissioner in both his original report and in a reply to the ruling, the investigation was about the then prime minister’s conduct and not that of three men who were arraigned and cleared of charges connected to the illegal arrest of journalists due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Regrettably, the present speaker does not have a reputation for being a lionheart when it comes to sanctioning wrong-doing or allegations of misconduct by members of the government and their cronies.
As a lawyer by profession and a former senior police officer, Farrugia, no doubt, appreciates the very clear distinction between political and criminal responsibility.
In his role of speaker, he should also see to it that no stone is left unturned so that all members of parliament, including himself, behave in a way that earns them the respect they deserve.
Confusing issues and bending the rules only serve to provoke anger and attract the people’s disdain rather than esteem.
Farrugia’s track record, including the stand he took on certain delicate issues and which is etched in some of his rulings, is unbecoming a speaker of a parliament in a healthy democracy, especially in a country striving to return to normal after governance and the rule of law were afflicted by a ‘pandemic’.