We still remember the court of justice case concerning high profile lawyers accused of an alleged attempt to corrupt a journalist and influence his manner of reporting. The prosecution did not appear to have a difficult task to prove the accusation. There seemed to be no undue contestation by the accused on basic features of the case.
Consensus seemed to prevail that money was offered to the journalist by the lawyers, allegedly in return for less negative reporting on a prominent client of theirs. The client in question is currently facing accusations in connection with the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Perhaps it is not correct to talk of an open and shut case since the presumption of innocence in our legal system is sacred and paramount. To many it appeared that the due process of justice would start and proceed to an eventual court sentence.
Unfortunately, it was not to be as it resulted that, perhaps, the Attorney General’s Office ill advised the police, who proceeded to advance their prosecution case on an incorrectly selected section of the law. On the basis of this error, the prosecution’s case was thrown out. The due law process stumbled, the accused were not tried, ending up neither innocent nor guilty. Unperturbed, they just walked out of the law courts.
Due justice was not served.
Now don’t we also recall another prominent case concerning a political canvasser operating within the education ministry? He was performing work for the Foundation for Tomorrow’s Schools. Among other tasks he was involved in administering payments to contractors for construction jobs worth hundreds of thousands of euros.
This person was accused of allegedly demanding and obtaining ‘commissions’ when passing on payment cheques to contractors. Allegedly, he used to insist, against regulations, on personally and directly handing over these cheques to the beneficiaries. In this case, the primary accuser was a committed and upright citizen occupying a top position within the foundation.
This senior official took up the matter directly with the ministry’s highest authorities, presumably supplying proof to substantiate the corruption allegations. Apparently, there were contractors lined up to give evidence against this canvasser. It was also alleged that this canvasser used to request and accept commissions in kind; a container full of tiles was mentioned. Such building materials would be utilised in a property project of this canvasser.
The allegations and evidence against this canvasser were such that prompted the police to proceed against him. Once more, the presumption of innocence in face of serious accusations had to be respected. The prosecution, with due support from the Attorney General’s Office, prepared its case. After some years, the first court session was called. This session proceeded with lightning speed and, in just one significant sitting, the police prosecution case was thrown out.
It seems the accused, in prosecution documentation, was referred to as a public officer when, in fact, he was not. He was a service provider in the employ of an entity contracted to the government. This mishap, again, allowed a presumed alleged offender to stroll out of the law courts with no further bother. Innocent or guilty, he was not tried and due justice was not served.
The long-awaited trial of various persons allegedly involved in the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia cannot end up with prosecutorial mistakes- Arthur Muscat
These two instances of justice malfunction are a frightening illustration of the fragility of a judicial procedure that seems extremely vulnerable to what appear to be minor mistakes that result in major consequences. Many members of the public are now perplexed and worried how easy it can be for a judicial process to stutter and stop.
The current debate on the rule of law in Malta has focused on the role and performance of the police and the Attorney General’s Office. These have the duty to initiate action against alleged wrongdoers and the responsibility to manage eventual judicial proceedings against them.
These are tremendous responsibilities to be handled with care and, much as no one is infallible, it is difficult to accept such elementary mistakes that end up denying justice to the public as well as the right of an accused to prove his innocence.
Definitely, such occurrences, under this Labour administration, do promote serious doubts on the rule of law in Malta. As expected, among members of the public there are many who do not consider such occurrences as inadvertent mistakes but as spanners deliberately thrown into the wheels of justice. These doubters may believe this is an in-your-face method of guaranteeing impunity to particular wrongdoers and particular alleged criminals. Our prime minister, however, periodically assures the public on the rule of law in Malta.
If such allegations of messing with judicial processes were to be true, then the citizens of Malta would have a lot to worry about. Fortunately, among others, Times of Malta, The Shift News and Repubblika are on the alert and do constantly courageously contrast tendencies that lead to a deterioration in justice procedures.
The long-awaited (five years) major trial of the various persons allegedly involved in Caruana Galizia’s assassination cannot end up with prosecutorial mistakes as mentioned in this article. Such a development would probably confirm the definite exile from Labour Malta of that magnificent lady who blindfoldedly holds up the scales of justice.
Arthur Muscat is a human resources and industrial relations specialist.