When they were in a position to wield power, the black sheep in disgraced Joseph Muscat’s corruption-ridden administration regularly tried to ridicule and gag those asking questions about what was really going on.
Now that they no longer officially hold public office, though some of them, at least, may still be influential, they go to cowardly lengths to avoid giving an account of their actions.
Or, to be more precise, they do not like replying to “torturous” questions, to quote a complaint made in court by former minister Konrad Mizzi just a few days ago.
The law gives the right to a suspect to remain silent when being interrogated by the police.
A witness can ask not to answer any question that “tends to expose him to any criminal prosecution” or “expose his own degradation”.
While, in the case of possible criminal prosecution, the court cannot order a person to answer, it has discretion to do so even if the evidence could degrade the witness.
However, it is the court, not the witness or the lawyer, that decides whether, by answering, a person might be exposing himself to possible criminal prosecution or degradation.
In fact, the code of organisation and civil procedure says that a witness must “answer any question which the court may allow to be put to him; and the court can compel him to do so by committing him to detention until he shall have sworn and answered”.
Indeed, the criminal code provides for both fines and imprisonment in such cases.
Though the law is very clear on this matter, it is not what happened when Mizzi appeared as witness before Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale in a civil suit instituted by former opposition leader Adrian Delia about the deal to privatise three state hospitals.
It immediately became clear that the former minister did not want to testify, or, rather, to answer any questions, because he did read out a statement relating to the case, which was also posted on his Facebook page.
Mizzi had barely stepped onto the witness stand than his lawyer, a former magistrate to boot, noted that his client may choose not to answer questions “if he feels uncomfortable”, given that ongoing magisterial inquiries may lead to criminal proceedings.
The judge agreed, and continued to stress the point subsequently that the witness may choose not to answer any self-incriminating questions but that it was the court that should direct the flow of questions.
Still, Mizzi had it his way and at no point was he formally warned by the court that if he continued to refuse to answer questions, he could face serious consequences.
“I have given a statement. I now choose not to testify,” he declared. And that was that.
He had adopted the same attitude when he appeared before the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder public inquiry late last year.
This was a charade of justice.
It is up to judges and magistrates to ensure the rule of law prevails irrespective who is in the dock or on the witness stand.
The courts are society’s ultimate bulwark. They have the power and the duty to determine when enough is simply enough.
Reacting to the line of questioning, Mizzi had the cheek to tell the presiding judge: “They want to make this a torturous event, your honour.”
A journalist laid down her life in sacrifice of her cause to ask the right questions, in search of the truth. How dare Mizzi, one of Muscat’s black sheep, speak of being tortured?