Thou shall not prosecute

Published in The Malta Independent, 7 March 2014

Three fundamental principles on which liberal democracy rests are the separation of powers between the police and government, the separation of roles and powers between the courts and the police, and the independence of the courts from government.

The faltering of this delicate equilibrium of checks and balances leaves the citizen powerless. In the worst case scenario, Government won’t defend the citizen in front of any abuse by the courts and the police won’t defend the citizen from any abuse by Government or the courts, and the courts will not defend the citizen from any abuse by the police and Government.

Within the space of a few days, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat positioned himself two times on the wrong side of justice. In the first instance, he effectively instructed the police not to prosecute the ‘over one thousand consumers’ who bribed Enemalta officials. The second occurrence was when the Prime Minister directed his members of Parliament to postpone the impeachment motion against Judge Farrugia Sacco.

Twice over, the Prime Minister directly interfered in the delicate balance of powers that secure the rights of all Maltese. In the first instance, the Prime Minister appropriated the responsibilities of the police while in the second he abdicated from the responsibility of Parliament, in both cases effectively delivering a ‘thou shall not prosecute’ edict.

By denying the course of justice, the Prime Minister is committing a travesty of justice. Law abiding citizens expect and demand action against those who break the law. And rightly so. We were brought up to believe in a system of blind justice, a judicial system that is separate and distinct from the administrative system. Courts on one side, government on the other. We accepted as true that the criminal and justice system as being free from political interference.

That is until we heard a police inspector testifying under oath in court that no police action was taken against persons who allegedly corrupted public officers because of a political decision. I read in disbelieve the media report thinking that the police inspector could have grossly misinterpreted the facts. But no counter statements were issued because the police inspector had spoken the truth.

We now have it black on white that the police referred to political directions from Government in deciding who not to investigate in this major corruption case.

The second travesty of justice concerns the case of Judge Farrugia Sacco. This was a definite test for the Prime Minister, which, unfortunately, he has failed miserably. Despite his public pledge to honour the decision of the Commission for the Administration of Justice, Government has chosen to drag its feet thereby allowing the judge to retire before the impeachment proceedings take place. Come August, Parliament will not be able to proceed against the Judge.

When Government decided to use the Constitutional Case escape route, the decision was clearly one to let Judge Farrugia Sacco not face the impeachment proceedings. One need only bear in mind that if the Constitutional Court had to conclude the case against the Judge in record time, an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights would naturally follow.

In simple terms, the common citizen interprets justice as fairness. Is it fair for a thousand plus persons who corrupted public officers to go Scot free? Is it fair that a judge who brought the Maltese judiciary in disrepute to be let off the hook? What is not fair can never be just. The Prime Minister’s decisions have created two gross injustices against all those who uphold the law and expect justice to be served.