The courts, the attorney general, the police and the security service have a common aim: to uphold the rule of law. They each have particular functions and duties but they must all ensure justice is done, the courts being the ultimate arbiter.

It is essential they operate strictly within the parameters of the law and shoulder their responsibilities to ensure justice takes its course. Otherwise, as the former chief justice, Silvio Camilleri, had warned, the “edifice of the administration of justice breaks down and all that remains are the ruins”. We have seen that happen and how!

A process of righting the wrongs done has started, though, of course, a lot more action needs to be taken, especially to nail all the culprits. However, worrying news that could affect the course of justice has emerged from court proceedings connected to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination and to high-profile money laundering cases.

Some of the concern arises from the inadequacy of legal provisions, such as when the court found that the Money Laundering Act fails to envisage an ordinary remedy for people targeted by an investigation and attachment order. But there have also been issues that give rise to suspicion over whether a genuine mistake was committed or devious minds were at work.

A case in point: one of the alleged hitmen in Caruana Galizia’s murder has just been awarded €10,000 damages after a judge found that his right to privacy and family life were breached by an unauthorised phone tap. This was because the security service did not have a valid warrant authorising the tap when the police were investigating his role in the assassination. It seems the information thus obtained proved crucial in proceeding against two of the alleged hitmen.

Now the law is very clear when it speaks about the need to obtain a warrant from the minister responsible for the security service. So how could the security service have bungled such a high-profile case? An appeal filed against the judgement may shed more light on the matter.

In another case, the two men suspected of supplying the powerful bomb that killed Caruana Galizia, together with an associate, are insisting that their right to a fair hearing was breached, mainly as a result of the presidential pardon to a self-confessed hitman who spilled the beans.

They claim some members of the cabinet that recommended the granting of the pardon did so to make sure certain facts about the murder would remain undisclosed.

Writing about the prerogative of mercy in the administration of justice, Kevin Aquilina, the former dean of the faculty of law at the University of Malta, had prophetically noted, almost nine years ago, that there could be offences that do not only concern the police and the offender but have a wider societal impact.

They could also involve victims and civil society who have their own views on the matter. Yet, these have no say in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, the pardon.

“This makes its exercise discretionary, unfair, secretive and partial. Its exercise is far from being complete, impartial, neutral, open, transparent and accountable,” the eminent scholar noted.

In view of the above, there is an urgent need to consider what the three judges hearing the Caruana Galizia assassination murder public inquiry recommended. They suggested that decisions on communication interceptions and presidential pardons be considered by a committee, independent of the executive, that would then make its recommendations to the president.

There is no time to lose. If cases like those mentioned above were to collapse on such grounds, it would be a devastating blow to the rule of law.