Inquiry Reform at the Centre of Debate

The proposed bill would require private individuals seeking a magisterial inquiry to first file a police report and wait six months before approaching the courts. Even then, a judge—not a magistrate—would have the final say on whether an inquiry should proceed. The government argues that the reform is necessary to modernise an outdated process and prevent potential abuses. However, critics, including Camilleri, argue that it could limit public oversight and reduce accountability.

Currently, any individual who suspects a crime has occurred can directly petition a magistrate to open an inquiry. This system has been used in past cases to investigate financial crimes and allegations of corruption. The proposed reform would introduce additional procedural steps and limit the types of evidence that can be submitted, excluding hearsay, which Camilleri has argued can be relevant in certain investigations.

Former Chief Justice’s Position

Camilleri has been one of the most outspoken critics of the proposed reform. He has argued that the changes would remove one of the few remaining tools available to the public for ensuring accountability in cases where institutions fail to act. He has also warned that increasing the involvement of the police and the judiciary in the initiation of inquiries could limit their independence and effectiveness.

His remarks were met with criticism from the government. Justice Minister Attard dismissed Camilleri’s concerns, labelling them as politically motivated. By tabling the document outlining Camilleri’s past criticisms, the government appeared to suggest that his opposition to the reform was part of a broader pattern of hostility toward its policies.

Reactions and Ongoing Debate

The release of the document has sparked further discussion about the government’s handling of criticism and the transparency of its legislative process.

The Nationalist Party has described the bill as a threat to judicial independence, while civil society organisations have raised concerns about its potential impact on public trust in the country’s institutions.

As the bill continues to be debated in Parliament, the government has maintained that its proposal is necessary and justified. However, questions remain over whether the reform will strengthen or weaken judicial oversight in Malta. The government’s approach to handling dissent, including its decision to table the list of Camilleri’s remarks, is likely to remain a point of contention as discussions progress.

What do you make of this latest development?