Former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat launched an attack on the legitimacy and credibility of the public inquiry into the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in his opening statement in court today.

Muscat is testifying the case this morning. You can follow it live over here,

Read Muscat’s statement in full below:

Mr Justice,

Before answering to the Board’s questions, I would like to put forward a number of points which are pertinent to the creation and existence of this Inquiry.

As the Prime Minister who personally took the unprecedented step of appointing this inquiry, and you as those conducting it, I feel that as you seem to be approaching the end of your work, I should point out the main points of the terms of reference you had to follow and report upon. These are:

“To determining whether any wrongful action or omission by, or within, any State entity facilitated the assassination or failed to prevent it. In particular whether (a) any State entity knew or ought to have known of, or caused, a real and immediate risk to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s life including from criminal acts of a third party and (b) failed to take measures within the scope of its powers which, judged reasonably, it might have been expected to take in order to avoid that risk.

To establishing whether the State had and has in place effective criminal law provisions and other practical means to avoid the development of a de facto state of impunity through the frequent occurrence of unresolved criminal acts and to deter the commission of serious criminal offenses, backed up by law enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression, investigation and punishment of serious breaches of the law.

To determining whether the State has fulfilled and is fulfilling its positive obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect individuals whose lives are at risk from criminal acts in particular in the case of journalists.”

These Terms of Reference were drafted following extensive meetings I personally held with the Caruana Galizia family and their representatives, since I wanted to ensure that things are done properly, and that nobody could accuse me, as was done with one of my predecessors, that I prejudiced such an important case.

With all due respect, I have to say that from what I learnt through the media covering the proceedings, most witnesses, questions and inquiries had little to do with these Terms of Reference, and were of little assistance in the fulfilment of your role. It is clear that most of the proceedings did not in any way reflect the discussions upon which the Terms of Reference were agreed.

The fact that both the Prime Minister who appointed you and the Prime Minister whom you are going to report to are expressing their concern, should not be taken lightly.

Frankly, the direction taken by this Inquiry resembles more an exercise in curiosity that reduced its credibility and undermined the legitimacy of such important work. In the best of cases, what was heard had the scope of seeing whether Daphne Caruana Galizia was right or wrong in some of the things she wrote. This is a legitimate exercise but it is not part of the Terms of Reference. In the worst of cases, this Inquiry has deteriorated into a political exercise.

There might be those who argue that all what was asked was necessary in order to give a more complete picture of the political and social situation in our country. This is a valid argument. But even if this was the case, the Inquiry still failed miserably, since it is the State which should have been investigated. Instead, it is the current Government only which was investigated. The Maltese State did not start in 2013, and many of the shortcomings known today are the result of decades of legacies by various Governments. If anything, the sitting Government elected in 2013 was the one which most implemented positive changes.

The actions of previous Governments were not minimally scrutinised even though if you found any relevance in some of the things that were said, you would have had a lot to report about on what happened prior to 2013. Thus, the 2013 arbitrary deadline goes against the grain of the more ample attitude used elsewhere.

May I add that the State, as you are very much aware, is not just the Government. Apart from the Executive, there are also the Legislative and Judicial branches. Two thirds of the State was subjected to no scrutiny whatsoever in this Inquiry even though there are a number of relevant points which should have been examined. Let me give you a clear example. Daphne Caruana Galizia was deeply critical of the Opposition in her writings especially during the last six months of writing, focusing almost exclusively on this. What type of scrutiny was this crucial part of the Legislative arm subject to? How come all her writings in this regard were not scrutinised as in the case of Government? Let me remind you that in her writing were accusations of corruption, money laundering and abuses. The reason why all this was was not duly investigated escapes me.

What about the Judiciary, of which you formed and still form part of? This is a fundamental part of the State and the lack of scrutiny thereof means that this is not a complete exercise. Also because, using the same rule of thumb, Daphne Caruana Galizia had written about this, and the Judiciary was not devoid of controversies that shocked the country over time. You worked and even presided the Judiciary within this context and were in a perfect place to analyse this part of the State since the days when the Council of Europe defined it as “an all in the family jamboree”, with the Chief Justice being the Minister’s brother, and the Members of the Judiciary coming from the Ministers’ private legal offices. You remember well those days.

Furthermore, allow me to add that since the times of Edmund Burke, the definition of the State was widened to include the media. The fourth estate has a crucial role in any democracy. There is information that points at a role which members of entities, which I dare say are institutions in this sector, might have played, and which might become known sooner or later. From commercial ties to more intricate ones. An analysis of this has not taken place.

All these facts show that the way in which this Inquiry was approached is shallow.

Allow me to focus once again on the Terms of Reference I sent you in my letter as Prime Minister.

“To determining whether any wrongful action or omission by, or within, any State entity facilitated the assassination or failed to prevent it. In particular whether (a) any State entity knew or ought to have known of, or caused, a real and immediate risk to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s life including from criminal acts of a third party and (b) failed to take measures within the scope of its powers which, judged reasonably, it might have been expected to take in order to avoid that risk.”

From media reports, it transpires that very few questions were asked in this regard, and from the few asked it is clear that there were not these shortcomings, even if one focuses solely on the Executive.

To be clear, I had no information that Daphne Caruana Galizia’s life was in danger, and nobody made any statement to that effect. Moreover, I am not informed that any State entity was aware of such, let alone facilitated or could have prevented.

All this has to be seen within the context that Daphne Caruana Galizia said numerous times, including in her writings on 24 November 2014, that she did not trust the Police, irrespective of who was in Government, that she did not want a security detail, and that she believed those assigned to her would be there to spy on her.

Despite this, as testified by former Police Commissioner John Rizzo, during the first telephone call I had with him before being appointed Prime Minister, I told him clearly to take all the necessary steps to have her and her family protected.

The second Term of Reference states:

“To establishing whether the State had and has in place effective criminal law provisions and other practical means to avoid the development of a de facto state of impunity through the frequent occurrence of unresolved criminal acts and to deter the commission of serious criminal offenses, backed up by law enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression, investigation and punishment of serious breaches of the law.”

Let us stick to facts. During the past 40 years there were 140 bomb cases. How many of them were solved? One. The one on which we are holding an Inquiry. In only this single case were the alleged executors and the alleged mastermind arraigned, and the Police said it is still following other leads. Impunity occurred in the 139 other cases where nobody was arraigned, let alone found guilty, and where no Public Inquiries were held.

There is no doubt that there is always room to improve law enforcement, and this has always improved and not deteriorated. Again, the inquiry falls short since no comparative analysis was sought. Instead, there was almost total reliance on statements which were only a superficial attempt at analysis.

May I remind that the Government I led took one of the most significant steps ever against impunity that of removing time barring on corruption cases. There has been a lot of talk about corruption during this Inquiry, but had this measure not been taken, the clock would be ticking against the public interest.

I now refer to the third Term of Reference:

“To determining whether the State has fulfilled and is fulfilling its positive obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect individuals whose lives are at risk from criminal acts in particular in the case of journalists.”

I speak as a person who during the first stages of his political life would be called “bicca gurnalist”. Clearly, it was no compliment. During the years I was active in politics, I replied to thousands of questions. I withstood fair and unfair criticism. I let hundreds of slanderous comments go by because I believe in freedom of expression. I sued for libel on only three occasions.

The first was when someone invented a story that I was to freeze the minimum wage. Ironically, I lost the case at the same time I increased the minimum wage for seven years in a row. The second was when I was falsely accused of pocketing money from the Citizenship by Investment Programme. The third libel suit was about the Egrant lie which was fed to Daphne Caruana Galizia in what was at attempt to destabilize the country. Egrant was the great absentee from this Inquiry. What was probably the story which was most stressed upon ever, has now been totally ignored since it does not fit the narrative. This happened despite the fact that even before being published, and while it was still being whispered in the ears by the then Leader of the Opposition during dinner parties, it had a fundamental role in the attitude and decisions I took on third parties. Ironically, Daphne Caruana Galizia had sued me and won a libel case against me when I was still a journalist, because of a phrase on the sleeve of a book I had written about masonic infiltration.

To be clear, I offered to drop the libel case against Daphne Caruana Galizia if the family simply acknowledges the conclusions of the Inquiry by one of your colleagues. This offer has to date been refused.

May I remind that the Government I led removed criminal libel, a step no Government had the courage to take. To further strengthen freedom of expression, we also removed censorship laws and provisions on profanity.

The Inquiry has also ignored the issue of protection of journalists, let alone gave it some context within the recent past. In the year 2000, a bomb was planted at the door of editor Frans Ghirxi. Many statements but nobody was arraigned. In May 2006, there were arson attacks against the homes of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Saviour Balzan. It was one of the very few times I communicated with her. The then Prime Minister had pledged that the Police would use all possible means to arrest the culprits, whose motive was quite clear. Nobody was arrested or arraigned. If we use terminology which is popular today, there was impunity. This ties up to my previous point, where the analysis on impunity seems to have been time barred.

An analysis of this context is necessary. Instead, two weeks of this Inquiry’s time and public resources were spent on the far-fetched speculation that journalists were held up at the Office of the Prime Minister, something the Courts have now dismissed as baseless.

There can never be any justification for the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. There can be no justification for taking a human life. Personally, the moment this assassination took place, I knew that my political life would be marked by it as much as all the things I tried doing for our country. I had decided from when entering politics that I would spend only two terms as Prime Minister, as I am a person who craves new challenges and I am not interested in musical chairs, as is custom with many politicians and also Members of the Judiciary. What happened on 16 October 2017 made me resolute that before signing off, I wanted to see a breakthrough in this case. I did not want to be like my predecessors who talked a lot but did not do anything about major murders which shook the country.

I am more than willing to answer all your questions which are relevant, and I expect a clear explanation of their link to the Terms of Reference. I am not here to satisfy curiosities or to gossip. At the cost of not being in your good books, I must say that besides in substance, even the form of this Inquiry left a lot to be desired. I am not aware I sent any letter of appointment to the lawyers of the Caruana Galizia family, but to three Members of the Judiciary who should act, and be seen as acting, independently. The way in which certain things have been carried out undermines the credibility of this whole exercise, surely with a substantial part of the population.

Let me give an example. You seem to be reading out questions, at least part of which have been formulated by third parties. In fact, according to media reports, in one sitting you remarked that there are questions which are not pertinent. Then again, according to media reports, it was the lawyers of the Caruana Galizia family who said it would soon be my turn to testify. I would have expected such a statement, which is a prerogative of the Board, to be made by yourselves.

All this as those who are here supposedly representing the State have taken a passive role. If not produce witnesses, the Office of the Attorney General and the State Advocate had to at least ask one single question. It is not Government’s role to instruct these offices what to do. Office holders have the duty to participate in order to give this Inquiry more credibility. Instead, the attitude adopted either undermines the exercise, which I do not believe was the purpose, or shows a psychological inferiority complex of institutions which fear criticism and reflects a lack of character.

I apologize for not being diplomatic in my words, but I feel that certain things need to be said. I am ready to answer all your pertinent questions relevant to the Terms of Reference.