The Norman Vella saga

By Stephen Calleja
Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday

If people are going to be arrested on the flimsy suspicion that they took photos of two government communications officers in the airport’s departure lounge, then I wonder where we’re heading.

There are various points that need clarification and analysis after what former TV presenter Norman Vella had to go through this past week, starting off with his arrest on Sunday.

1. It is clear to me that it was an attempt by the state to intimidate a person who is not to its liking. When the police holds a person for four hours, confiscates his personal belongings and interrogates him just because “someone” (and we’ll talk about this someone later) made a report is typical of a nation where democracy and freedom are under threat. Norman Vella has said a number of times – including last Wednesday on Net TV – that it was Joseph Muscat himself, then Opposition Leader, who had said to him, face to face, that “for each blow to the Labour Party, we’ll hit you back twice over, below the belt, where it hurts”. Well, what happened last Sunday is an example of what blows below the belt mean.

2. On Monday, Dr Muscat said that Mr Vella had not been arrested, but had helped the police in their investigations. It could be that Dr Muscat was misinformed, or was not given all the details, but when someone is held in custody, is read his rights, is given the option of contacting a lawyer and makes a statement that is signed by himself and the officers who questioned him, it is definitely an arrest. This was something that was also confirmed in court during the hearing that was instituted by Mr Vella for the return of his personal gadgets. As far as I know, Dr Muscat did not correct his initial statement.

3. There is a mystery surrounding the identity of the person or persons who made the report about Mr Vella’s alleged taking of photos – which, it turned out, was a pure invention. Mr Kurt Farrugia and Ms Ramona Attard have both denied making a report about Mr Vella’s alleged wrongful behaviour. The court heard otherwise from Dr Karol Aquilina, who testified in defence of his client. The first two were making a statement to journalists; Dr Aquilina was testifying in court under oath.

4. It emerged from Mr Vella’s statement to the police that, during the interrogation, one of the inspectors received a call in which the name of Silvio Scerri, the Home Ministry’s chief of staff, was mentioned. Mr Scerri later said that he was just trying to obtain information, following calls he had received from reporters. If this is really the case, it is quite strange that some journalists would seek the assistance of the Home Ministry’s chief of staff on a police investigation. Is there no longer a demarcation line between the government and the police?

5. This is yet another incident involving a Ministry that has been in the limelight several times for all the wrong reasons since its inception in March. The Norman Vella saga, the Data Protection Commissioner ruling and the citizenship scheme are just the more recent examples of embarrassing situations that included policemen acting as waiters, a political manifestation within the prison walls when an amnesty was granted and multiple promotions in the Armed Forces.

6. It was an exceptional occurrence for the Police Commissioner himself to defend the police in the court of law in the case instituted by Mr Vella for the return of the confiscated items. To me, it seems that the Commissioner wanted to make a statement, but it backfired and Mr Vella’s victory gained in value as it was obtained against both the Force as an institution as well as its chief, who tried to justify illegal and abusive behaviour against a private citizen.

7. PBS was almost completely absent on the Norman Vella case. Its news reports – when there were any – were dumped way down on the priority list. No current affairs programme on the national TV station dealt with the issue that was developing and that was attracting public interest. I take Peppi Azzopardi’s word for it that the Xarabank team felt it had a conflict of interest over the situation, given that Mr Vella was previously one of the programme’s producers. But there are other programmes on PBS that could have tackled the matter. Mr Vella himself offered his willingness to take part in any one of them, but he was never invited. This is not a surprise: after all, PBS falls under the same Ministry as the one that is responsible for the police.

In the pre-election days, Dr Muscat promised a Labour government which is transparent, accountable and fair. But the Norman Vella case is anything but. Instead, it is the perfect example of a heavy-handed approach simply aimed at scaring someone who had the temerity to take the Prime Minister to court.

Nobody has shouldered responsibility for the injustice that was committed. And there are still too many grey areas which will probably remain such because the government and the police messed up and know it, and they will do everything possible to quieten things down.

Anglu Farrugia was made to resign from the post of deputy leader of the Labour Party in December for a much less serious shortcoming. Beyond the political tactic that it was – considering that many interpreted it as counter-move to the Nationalist’s Party election of Simon Busuttil as deputy leader to replace the newly-appointed European Commissioner Tonio Borg – the forced resignation of Dr Farrugia was made to appear as a sign that Dr Muscat does not tolerate people who abuse their position and make statements that could harm the party.

But it appears that the same is not happening now that Labour is in government. And what happened this time was not just a few words about a magistrate, but an abuse of authority against a private citizen on a flimsy suspicion that turned out to be completely unfounded.