A year ago on Saturday, former prime minister Joseph Muscat, succumbing to intense pressure from the Council of Europe, appointed a public independent inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
About a month later, two members of the panel were changed and the scope of the inquiry broadened, following representations from the Caruana Galizia family and just a few hours before the CoE was due to discuss concerns raised over the inquiry board’s impartiality.
The new panel, made up of a former chief justice and two other well respected members of the judiciary, past and present, were tasked with determining whether the state facilitated or failed to prevent the assassination, whether it permitted or permits criminal impunity, and whether or not it protected or protects lives at risk, especially of journalists.
According to Clause 8 of its terms of reference, the board was to “endeavour to conclude its work within a time frame of nine months without prejudice to the proper fulfilment of these terms of reference”.
Prime Minister Robert Abela has now decided the board must end its work by mid-December. He went further in his manifest interference in the inquiry process by expressing “reservations” about whether the board is fulfilling its terms.
It is clear from Clause 8 that it is up to the panel of judges to determine whether they are fulfilling, or have fulfilled, their terms of reference, and not up to the head of the same government whose actions or omissions may have led to the murder.
The irony may be totally lost on the current prime minister that his desire to curtail the board’s search for truth promotes the very climate of impunity it is probing
It is clear, too, that Abela has learned no lessons from his predecessor’s disregard for the principle of independence in setting up that first panel.
The irony may be totally lost on the current prime minister that his desire to curtail the board’s search for truth promotes the very climate of impunity it is probing.
Even more ironic, perhaps, is that Abela still believes a prime minister should be at the centre of power – the very state of affairs he is supposed to reform following the assessment of the CoE’s Venice Commission on the rule of law in Malta. The CoE experts who drafted their report ought to read between the lines: rather than transferring power to independent institutions, Abela wants them to remain weak and compliant.
The panel is delving deep into the actions and failures of state players during and after the assassination.
The judges have helped reveal possible motives for the murder, evidence of institutionalised collusion with abuse of power and willful blindness to blatant corruption at the highest levels.
Even before the inquiry has ended, the country has a lot to be grateful for.
However, the truths that are emerging may be just too inconvenient for Abela’s – or his predecessor’s – liking. There can hardly be any other explanation for his attempt to put an end to the revelations around a crime which rocked the island to its foundations, led to the demise of a prime minister and shone an international spotlight on Malta’s manifold shortcomings of governance and democracy.
Abela has realised the only way to ensure no further damage is done to himself and those still in the shadows of power is to cut the public inquiry short.
A detail in the testimony that Deputy Prime Minister Chris Fearne gave to the inquiry may help explain Abela’s attitude. When asked about his relationship with Muscat’s former chief of staff Keith Schembri, he replied: “Rightly or wrongly, I felt that he tried to hinder my [Labour leadership] election prospects…”
The only other candidate was Abela. The prime minister himself may have little baggage to speak of but he seems to be carefully handling the baggage of those who potentially helped engineer his move to Castille.