Not to shoot the messenger is always wise advice. Provided, of course, the ‘messenger’ is not the one distorting or contaminating the message.
Aware of Victoria Buttigieg’s track record since assuming the crucial responsibility of attorney general, even before, one can only wonder why the Chamber of Advocates felt it had to publicly defend her, personally rather than the attorney general’s office.
The Chamber of Advocates issued two statements on July 20, one referring to comments made by the prime minister and the other about a social media post dealing with the attorney general.
Why it had to wait for three days before deciding to react to what Robert Abela had said about the inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia’s death is not clear. It may well have been necessary to avoid being accused of rushing to defend the attorney general but not deploring the government’s interference in the work of the judiciary.
The Chamber of Advocates declared it “will never accept that the attorney general is personally attacked or denigrated. The chamber expresses its solidarity with Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg.”
A clear distinction ought to be made between the office holder and the office. Such high office as the attorney general’s, which can have a far-reaching impact on the legal landscape and even on individuals, deserves to be defended at all costs.
It was, no doubt, within this frame of mind that the Chamber of Advocates had declared, three years ago, it was “perplexed” by Buttigieg’s appointment given her lack of experience in criminal law. The comment was definitely directed at the incumbent not the institution. Sensitive decisions she has made since vindicate the chamber’s stand.
Just over a year ago, she was given a dressing down by a judge for refusing to produce certain documents.
Inexplicably, she had accepted to drop the charge of the attempted murder of police officers during a botched bank heist.
For some reason, she had not provided the police with the authorisation to arrest a gaming consultant wanted in Germany over tax evasion.
Though she had the opportunity to do so, earlier this year, Buttigieg refused to answer questions about allegations she colluded with the police to spare two Pilatus Bank officials from prosecution.
There were a number of court cases in which the drawing up of charge sheets by the office she heads and certain demands came under fire, also by members of the judiciary.
Even before being appointed, first, state advocate and, then, attorney general, Buttigieg had a dark shadow cast over her. The Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry had clearly implied that she – deputy attorney general at the time – had put the interests of the government of the day before those of the State in the Electrogas deal.
She may or may not have helped engineer a scenario whereby the government would appear justified in changing its mind about the Sofia public inquiry. However, she surely allowed her office to be used, in the process bringing it into disrepute.
If, on her watch, the attorney general’s office is failing to fulfil one of its main roles – upholding the rule of law and maintaining the legal system – the responsibility falls squarely on Buttigieg’s shoulders. She should, therefore, be the target not her office.
There have been too many instances when she appeared weak at the knees. Incompetence and, worse, submission can never be acceptable in a person running one of the most sensitive and authoritative offices in the country.
Ubi deficiunt equi, trottant aselli. Where thoroughbreds are lacking, donkeys trot.