Mocked by a journalist after a teenager was arraigned over what was evidently no more than a youthful prank, a former police commissioner insisted that, as long as the act in question was deemed an offence by law, he was duty bound to prosecute.
The electoral commission appears to have adopted a different approach. As such, what to many are tantamount to corrupt practices do not seem to ruffle any feathers at the electoral office.
The bottom line: the corrupt practices provisions of the General Elections Act continue to be respected in their breach.
Both before Saturday’s election and even in the hours after the result was out, the Nationalist Party complained that the cheques mailed by the government to most households in Malta over the past days potentially amounted to a corrupt practice.
The cheques – to pensioners, workers and students – were ostensibly part of a €70 million stimulus package to help families deal with the increase in the cost of living. Welfare cheques usually come from the government department responsible for social security, but these were accompanied by letters signed by the prime minister and the finance minister.
The timing, the manner in which they were promoted and even the wording of the letters themselves gave it away.
“The steps taken over the past two years [not since 2017 or 2013 but ‘the past two years’, that is, since Abela became prime minister]”, said the letter attached to the ‘tax refund’ cheque, “meant that the Maltese economy has recovered quickly and is in a position where it can continue to grow, create jobs and generate wealth”.
The closing words were in line with the Labour Party’s main message: “This tax refund is a gesture of appreciation for your active participation towards the building of a better country for our children.”
It can hardly get any more blatant than that. But it seems this did not bother the chief electoral commission or his 10 commissioners, including those who, though not officially, represent the interests of the party in opposition.
Our main story today quotes the police saying they see nothing illegal in the practice.
Though the Nationalist Party deemed the cheques distribution bonanza as a vote-buying move, it could hardly make too much noise about it lest it would be accused by the rival party of objecting to make people’s lives better, as Labour sold it. Though that is political convenience at its best, the objection remains valid.
The least the electoral commission could do, even at this late stage, is investigate whether the complaints fall within the ambit of the General Elections Act where it speaks of corrupt practices. This should be done forthwith, and the outcome of the discussion immediately communicated to the public. It is interesting to hear the police's interpretation of the law.
The law is very clear as to the grounds of what would be considered as amounting to corruption or bribery, before, during or after an election. These include: any gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement to give or procure, offers, promises or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure any office, place or employment.
Since the law lays down that no prosecution for a corrupt practice can be instituted without the sanction of the attorney general, perhaps, the attorney general can, at least, communicate to the electorate her informed opinion on the matter. But do not hold your breath.
Still, if not retroactively, the electoral commission should fulfil its constitutional and legal duties and make it amply clear what is acceptable in the relationship between political parties and voters. There is a limit to the so-called power of incumbency.