‘A Fast Track To Unchecked Power’: Reactions To Prime Minister’s Vow To Reform Magisterial Inquiry Process
Maltese activists and personalities have reacted to Prime Minister Robert Abela’s vow to reform magisterial inquiries after a lawyer requested an urgent investigation into another alleged corruption racket.
“Dismantling checks and balances is a fast track to unchecked power, corruption, and the erosion of transparency and public trust,” former Labour MEP Cyrus Engerer wrote on social media.
Lawyer and former PN MP Jason Azzopardi revealed his urgent request for a magisterial inquiry yesterday morning into an alleged racket operating in Gozo and involving the Gozo and Transport Ministries. It involved financial and political bribery in return for in-demand mooring spots in Mġarr and government jobs.
Azzopardi specifically named Gozo Minister Clint Camilleri’s wife – lawyer and top manager at Transport Malta Gozo, Deborah Camilleri, as one of the officials responsible for this alleged corruption. Azzopardi further claimed that the Gozo Minister was an accomplice.
In addition to this, the lawyer argued that Deborah Camilleri continued her private work as a lawyer during her hours at TM, making her liable to face prosecution for money laundering.
The Prime Minister reacted strongly to these allegations. He called the PN an “extremist faction” that wants to send the mother of “two young children to prison”. Abela said the accusations of her working as a lawyer while she was supposed to be fulfilling her role as a public officer were false but did not directly address the accusations of a broader corrupt network in Gozo.
He went on to generalise requests for magisterial inquiries submitted by people affiliated with the Opposition Party as “malicious and baseless attacks” that he will not allow any long.
“The line has now been completely crossed, and I will not allow any Nationalist Party member or anyone conspiring with them to continue abusing magisterial inquiries or subjecting people to the ordeal of unnecessary judicial proceedings,” he wrote on social media.
The Prime Minister concluded by saying that he has asked Justice Minister Johnathan Attard to immediately finalise the reform of magisterial inquiries.
This statement received a strong response from people who are politically involved in Malta. Abela was primarily criticised for pledging to intervene in the judicial branch of Malta’s governing system.
It was further made clear by a couple of people that a magistrate has the right to reject a request on the basis of it lacking evidence. This means that there are already insurances within the law to protect people from false claims and unnecessary investigations.
Cyrus Engerer
Engerer wrote a short yet clear statement on his social media, expressing concern on attempts to dismantle checks and balances intended to ensure even the most powerful within society will be subject to justice.
“These safeguards aren’t inconveniences. They’re essential to keep democracy accountable, transparent and fair. Tossing them aside sacrifices stability and progress for chaos and control.”
“No democracy can have enough checks and balances. These must be strengthened, not dismantled.”
Franco Debono
Lawyer and former PN MP Franco Debono shared a historical and legal context of magisterial inquiries. He outlined former attempts to restrict private citizens from requesting them and pointed out the current constitutional reform.
He stated that in 2003, Labour MP Carmelo Abela, acting in a personal capacity, requested a magisterial inquiry into corruption within the Foundation for Tomorrow’s Schools (FTS).
This inquiry was conducted and concluded by Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera, uncovering various irregularities but no criminal offenses. The government of the day was not particularly pleased with the idea that a private individual could request a magisterial inquiry. In 2006, under the false pretense of recognising this right of a private person to request an inquiry, it introduced a proposal to create a hurdle: such inquiries would require the Chief Justice’s consent to proceed.
This proposal, seen as limiting the private individual’s right to request inquiries, faced heavy criticism from the Opposition and the media, leading to its eventual scrapping, he continued.
“In 2011, as part of a holistic reform in justice, I reiterated in Parliament what I had been advocating since 2008: the separation of magistrates’ roles into adjudicating and inquiring functions. This proposal was implemented this year, with the appointment of four magistrates dedicated exclusively to inquiries.”
Debono went on to say that the Prime Minister made an “an important statement, highlighting that an extensive constitutional reform has taken place in recent years—one that many people are unaware of”.
Many of these reforms, he noted, were proposals Debono had made during his tenure as an MP.
“Here, the Prime Minister has a point.”
However, with regards to Abela’s comment on magisterial inquiries, Debono warned that the Prime Minister needs to be cautious not to “reverse roles by limiting the right for private citizens to request a magisterial inquiry”… something that the PL opposition in 2006 criticised the government for attempting to do.
Robert Aquilina
Repubblika activist Robert Aquilina stated that the Labour Party, Joseph Muscat and his loyalists are “exploiting Robert Abela’s weakness to regain control at the heart of power.”
“In a context where the Police Corps and the Office of the Attorney General are compromised and positioned to turn a blind eye to abuse and corruption, Muscat and Abela are engaging in vicious attacks and dark manoeuvres with two clear intentions: To dismantle the ability of magistrates and judges to carry out their duties; and to crush critics who expose the abuse and deceit of those in power.”
In a separate social media post, Aquilina accused Abela of “continuing his efforts to strengthen his protection of his criminal associates”.
He stated that this right to request a magisterial inquiry is a loophole that allows civil society to combat corruption: “When they installed puppet after puppet in the role of Police Commissioner, they neglected to close it.”
Aquilina continued to explain that for a magistrate to agree to initiating an inquiry, the person requesting it must present evidence. The magistrate then decides whether there is a prima facie case and this decision can be appealed before a judge.
“If you pass all these hurdles, the inquiry begins.”
Even after it begins, he explained, the Magistrate is not obligated to take the side of the person who requested it. This means that the current system already robustly protects the rights of those suspected of criminal offenses.
“Robert Abela wants to strip this right from the Maltese and Gozitan citizens. He wants to do so to ensure that, once he places a puppet as Police Commissioner, no action can be taken against the criminal activities of politicians.”
Jason Azzopardi
Azzopardi, the person who is calling for all electronic evidence to be seized, also replied to Abela’s comment.
“Idiot. The law already provides a safety valve for anyone who believes that a report made to a Magistrate was intentionally false.”
“It’s called Calumny (Article 101 of the Criminal Code). And if it was made under oath, there’s also the article dealing with the crime of false testimony under oath.”
Azzopardi went on to challenge Abela: “tell your friend to take action against me for calumny and false testimony (since you’re claiming that nothing wrong or illegal happened). Do it tonight.”
In a different post Azzopardi argued that Abela’s statement admitted two truths: that Deborah Camilleri broke the law because otherwise, he wouldn’t have mentioned the fear of imprisonment.
“Because prison is for the guilty, not the innocent. And this happens only if, when, and after a transparent criminal process takes place.”
And that Abela doesn’t want evidence to be collected to combat criminality and corruption within his government.
“If this weren’t the case, he wouldn’t be panicking and rushing to order an end to inquiries requested by private citizens.”
He explained that the purpose of every magisterial inquiry is to gather evidence, if any exists, of breaches of the law. Opposing the initiation of an inquiry implies the knowledge of evidence of crimes that one does not want to come to light.
“He’s not worried about the Police Commissioner. That position is in his pocket and under his control. Now he’s launched an attack on the judiciary and on private citizens.”
Similar to Aquilina, Azzopardi explained that a magistrate has the right to reject inquiry requests and that there is always the right to appeal a decision to open a magisterial inquiry.
If an inquiry is opened, the magistrate does not determine guilt. The inquiry’s “sole purpose” is to gather evidence, indications, and traces of criminal acts. Only at its conclusion, if evidence of a crime is found, can the magistrate recommend (not even order) that a person be charged.
“Today, Robert Abela confirmed that he is completely beholden to Clint Camilleri and panicked by the possibility that the mobile phones I requested to be seized might expose a vast network of organised crime at the highest levels of government.”
What is your reaction to Abela’s pledge to reform magisterial inquiries?
READ NEXT: Maltese Delegation Joins EPP Congress For Young Farmers In Brussels
