Just under a year and a half ago, a few days after taking up his post, Police Commissioner Angelo Gafà pledged to be closer to the media and provide the public with as many answers as possible.
But when asked, recently whether an investigation into payments received by former prime minister Joseph Muscat was under way, the police replied they were bound by law not to provide that information.
This formal reply only fuels suspicion that some people remain untouchable.
The Police Act does bar a police officer from giving “any details to the press or the broadcasting media regarding the identity of any person arrested on a reasonable suspicion that he committed an offence”.
Neither are the police allowed by law to issue to the press, directly or indirectly, any information about the identity of a person about to be charged in court.
Speaking in parliament a few days ago, Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi observed that when the police said they could not, by law, divulge any information on anybody who is a suspect, they were effectively admitting that Muscat is a suspect.
Otherwise, Azzopardi might have added to draw his argument to its logical conclusion, the police would have replied that no, Muscat is not a suspect and they are not investigating him. The MP recalled that, two years ago, the police had issued a statement saying there was no further need to continue investigating Keith Schembri or keep him under arrest.
The law refers to the “identity” of a suspect. In fact, the police communications office issues information every day about accidents, crimes or arrests, often going on to say that a police investigation and a magisterial inquiry are under way. The police also divulge certain information during press conferences held after a major crime.
In the Muscat case, the police would have been well within the bounds of precedent and the law to reply that an investigation into possible financial crime was in progress, without identifying the suspect or suspects. Gafà himself had seen no obstacle to speaking about the investigation in progress when arrests were made in connection with Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder.
It appears, therefore, that the law does give the police some elbow room to keep society informed about their work in upholding the rule of law – a matter of vital importance to society.
If Gafà is truly not impressed by the names of any suspects, he should re-read the comments made by GRECO and by the three judges who conducted the public inquiry into the Caruana Galizia murder – and put the interests of society first.
The Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption took note of the police reputation for being heavily influenced by the executive branch of power. It also remarked that the corps’ ability to deal with sensitive or major cases was largely dependent on its head to lead the work in the face of external pressures. The public inquiry, in turn, concluded that the police had the duty to prevent serious cases of financial crime, yet did nothing and looked the other way.
Gafà has done a lot to try to restore faith in the police after his predecessors’ shambolic terms, but he also needs to provide answers. He must assure the public that the police are fulfilling their duty according to law, which is to prevent, detect and investigate offences, collect evidence and bring the offenders to justice.