Opposition leader Joseph Muscat insisted in parliament today that the Minister of Home Affairs should explain how a prisoner was found dead in January last year after having reportedly collaborated with the police about a macabre murder and may have been planning to reveal details about another two cases.

Speaking in parliament during the debate on the censure motion against Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici, Dr Muscat recalled that  prisoner Steve Spiteri had been found dead in his cell in January last year. His family had been kept in the dark for hours by the prison authorities, despite being told what had happened by  another prisoner.

The prisoner was found naked and an autopsy found he had consumed a lethal cocktail. Yet he had been seen by a doctor for a minor ailment just hours before.

What was worrying was how this prisoner was known to have collaborated with the police on a macabre murder and some believed he was about to reveal further information about another two macabre cases. Then, suddenly, he was found dead just weeks before he was meant to walk out of prison.

His family, Dr Muscat said, were continuing to face a wall of silence from the authorities. A prisoner had given a statement to the police, yet the police had said the case was closed. The minister, therefore, needed to explain, Dr Muscat said.

Earlier in his speech, Dr Muscat said that ministers should be held accountable for their political effectiveness, and personal friendships should not be a barrier for the opposition to demand that ministers assume their responsibilities.

The opposition's motion, he said,  was not about the personal qualities of Dr Mifsud Bonnici. It was judgement on his political effectiveness. 

He had no problem in saying that he had a good personal relationship with many members of the government. But such friendship should not be a barrier for the opposition's duty to demand political accountability. Were that to be the case democracy would be reduced to a pantomime.

The rules were there for everyone.

One could recall how Dr Tonio Borg, while he was in opposition, had put a parliamentary question which revealed how a civil servant had led a minister not to follow Cabinet rules on presidential pardons for a person's release from prison. That situation had led to the resignation of then minister Charles Mangion.

No one believed that Dr Borg was being personally vindictive against Dr Mangion or that he wanted to destroy his family.

Reacting to a comment by the prime minister that no confidence motion had been moved, Dr Muscat said Dr Mangion had assumed his responsibility and resigned.

"No one should expect personal favours, western democracy demands a distinction between our roles, but we are not being personal in any way" Dr Muscat said.

The Opposition leader noted how a Councilf of Europe report on the Maltese judicial system had commented about an 'all in the family jamboree' with regard to the Mifsud Bonnici family. Did this mean that the report writers have something personal against them?

Turning to serious failures by Dr Mifsud Bonnici in the running of his ministry, Dr Muscat said the police force was stagnating. It lacked a strategic plan and members, including experienced officers, were leaving in droves. The force was inadequately equipped. The force needed modern legislation, enough human resources, and technology.

With regard to illegal immigration, years ago the minister had spoken about 'solutions' yet none had materialised. He had sought credit when migrants did not continue to arrive Now he was saying nothing. True, it was not his fault that migrants were coming to Malta, but it was not his actions which had stopped them either.

What was worrying, was how Malta had ended up on international watchlists, including those of the US, over human trafficking. Further deterioration of Malta's status could well see the US discontinue some assistance currently given to Malta.

Dr Muscat said minister Mifsud Bonnici had failed in law-making.

It was disgraceful how, for example, a senior police officer who was facing serious charges, was let off  because he was not accompanied by a lawyer (during interrogation). Such cases were increasing because a law approved by the House years ago had not been brought into force when it should have. The minister had said he had postponed the right to legal assistance to people under interrogation until the police were better equipped. Yet the police were never well equipped and the excuse in the implementation of this law could well have allowed criminals to go free.

It was also a disgrace that laws were not promptly amended after they were declared unconstitutional by the courts.

Dr Muscat said the police force was facing one of its worst moments. It was suffering a serious lack of management and there was disillusionment across the board.

It was worrying how criminals were streets ahead of the police in the use of technology. Equipping the police was not only about buying new cars.

Dr Muscat said the minister had still not kept his word about giving policemen trade union rights. Two years after his promise, a Bill still had to be published.

In the law courts, which were now no longer under Dr Mifsud Bonnici but which were his legacy, the planning laws had been broken in the building of an extension, but everyone acted like nothing had happened (minister protests across the floor).

The Court Registrar himself had said, just yesterday, that matters 'are going downwards' at the law courts. This strong statement demanded a reaction from the current justice minister, and his predecessor.

It was also Dr Mifsud Bonnici who was also politically responsible for the fact that the Freedom of Information Act had still not come into force. Was his failure due to orders from higher up? The same applied to the useless Whistleblower Act, which was still before parliament and which had been written in a shameful manner and would not actually protect whistle blowers.Just as shameful was show the law provided that its application did not apply to acts which would have taken place before its enactment. This was a sacrilege, a travesty of democracy.

The minister and the government had also dragged their feed on a party funding law and a draft had even been criticised by a Council of Europe committee.