‘Moral convictions’? Thanks, but I’d much prefer solid evidence

I didn't hear him say it with my own ears, but I am told that Jason Azzopardi - Nationalist MP, etc - claimed on TV last night that he was "morally convinced" that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat had somehow intervened in the decision not to press charges against John Dalli.

Whether he said it in those precise words or not is (almost) irrelevant. I slipped the word "almost" in there because I honestly find it astounding that people like Azzopardi would assume our collective memories do not stretch any further back than last March - so much so, that he would nonchalantly echo one of the most controversial vintage Alfred Sant quotes ever, and assume none of us would even notice.

But if even he didn't quote Alfred Sant word for word, as widely reported online... well, it's not really that important. The important thing is that the entire Nationalist Party, starting with its leader Dr Simon Busuttil, is now behaving exactly like Alfred Sant had behaved way back in the days of the Queiroz pardon. And you'll forgive me for being worried about the implications.

OK, I understand that some of my readers may not even have been born back then... but it is worth revisiting that little incident just to refresh our memories about what the PN once thought about 'moral convictions', and all who aired them.

Francisco Assis Queiroz was a Brazilian national sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for importing 3kg of cocaine in the early 1990s. He was diagnosed with Hepatitis C while in prison; after which he was granted a presidential pardon, enabling him to walk out of prison a free man after serving not even a fraction of his sentence.

Alfred Sant was Opposition leader at the time - and like Busuttil, he had only just inherited that role from a predecessor who (no offence or anything) had more or less smashed the entire party to atoms over the preceding five years. I still remember him howling and stamping his feet about how the Nationalist government under Eddie Fenech Adami was in the pockets of 'barunijiet tad-droga'. The story immediately came to be referred to as 'L-iskandlu ta' Queiroz' on the then-fledgling Super One TV - one of an almost infinite number of similar 'skandli' to erupt in years to come: 'L-iskandlu tal-Mistra', 'l-iskandlu ta' Mater Dei', ta' Siemens, ta' Daewoo, and so on and so forth and so fifth.

As I recall, Justice Minister Joe Fenech sued Alfred Sant for libel over his 'corruption' claims - and I can't remember precisely whether Sant came out with the 'moral conviction' argument in court, in parliament, or addressing a mass meeting. Whatever the venue, what he said was (words to the effect of): 'I am morally convinced' that there was corruption involved in the decision.

I think you'll find the following rough translation to be... ooh, vaguely familiar: "I can't prove it, I know I can't prove it, but my gut feeling tells me I am right and that should be enough for everyone, including parliament and the courts of justice..."

Unsurprisingly, Sant went on to lose that libel case... and his 'moral conviction' quote would go down in the annals of the Nationalist Party as an instant way to deride any allegations of corruption levelled at a PN administration, at any point, ever.

It is still used in this sense to this very day. If you run an online search with the words 'moral, conviction, Alfred Sant', the first few links that will come up will take you to you-know-who's blog (and if you 'don't know who', suffice it for the moment to say that this is where Simon Busuttil is evidently getting all his ammunition and leadership ideas from), where the words are used endlessly to pour scorn and vitriol on anything that resembles a cry-wolf suggestion of corruption directed at the previous administration.

So long as the allegation comes from non-PN sources, of course. When the Nationalist Party leader resorts to unsubstantiated allegations of corruption regarding a Labour government, suddenly the same 'moral conviction' is considered more than enough proof to send a man to the gallows. In fact, why demand any 'proof' at all? We have Simon Busuttil's 'moral conviction' that the prime minister personally intervened in police work, and that should be enough. And what does it matter that Busuttil was repeatedly asked to substantiate this allegation, but never did? It was a stupid question to ask anyway. When allegations concern the political opponents of the PN, no substantiation is ever required. But if you reverse the order in that sentence, and you will find the opposite is true.

I mean, honestly: how long are we are going to carry on hearing arguments that were discredited as long ago as 1994?

Meanwhile... remember that little adage about the goose and the gander? Well, it applies as much to today's political environment as it did to the presidential pardon dished out to Queiroz, and all the other instances when past and present administrations find themselves accused of corruption or any other form of wrongdoing. There is, after all, a rather important principle at stake here: no matter how damning any situation might look from the outside - and both the Queiroz case and the Dalli business are indeed suspicious-looking affairs that need to be properly investigated - personal convictions and politically-motivated suspicions are no goddamn substitute for cast-iron evidence gathered through hard work.

It was the same with the Enemalta corruption scandal that erupted during the last election campaign. Just imagine this newspaper ran a front page story with a headline to the effect of 'We are morally convinced that there is corruption in Enemalta's fuel procurement processes'... and underneath, a small disclaimer: 'Evidence? Evidence is for pussies. We have moral conviction, and that's all we'll ever need...'

So once again: no offence, but quite frankly I couldn't give a toss whether or not Jason Azzopardi is 'morally convinced' that there was political interference in a police decision. I couldn't care less how many 'squares' Simon Busuttil has lined up behind him to prop up his own claims... four at the last count, even though the number of squares in the party is obviously higher. The reason I don't care is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and - just like the PN had (rightly) insisted on evidence for the Queiroz allegation - it is now incumbent on the persons making these allegations to either substantiate or withdraw them.

The problem, however, is that Busuttil is echoing Sant in more than just 'moral convictions'. His treatment of the press is beginning to strike a distinctly recognisable chord, too... at least, with journalists old enough to remember the Labour Party press conferences in the days of the EU referendum.

For instance: this week Busuttil was asked point blank why, in his opinion, the former police commissioner did not issue an arrest warrant for John Dalli at any point between 15 October - when the OLAF report landed on his desk - and his last day as Police Commissioner, which was a good four months later. It was a very relevant question, given that - in all but the last couple of weeks of that time frame - it was actually the Nationalist Party that was occupying the seat of government (even if hanging in there by a thread).

Any political interference that occurred during that time could therefore only be attributable to the party that Busuttil himself leads today... at a time when he himself was deputy leader and main campaign manager.

His answer? "The Labour Party is insulting the people's intelligence."

Huh? OK, let's for argument's sake accept that statement as the truth - I don't deny that Labour insults people's intelligence all the time: only it's hardly the sole prerogative of the PL, is it? But even we accept the statement... how, exactly, does that even begin to answer the question? What light does it shed on Busuttil's 'moral convictions' regarding the former police commissioner's unaccountable decision NOT to take action for four whole months, when both he and the Attorney General (according to Rizzo's testimony, anyway) agreed that action should be taken?

The same question assumes greater significance in light of the fact that the police did take action against one of the people alluded to in the OLAF report: Silvio Zammit. I find it profoundly disquieting that John Rizzo would publicly admit that he himself felt he should also have arraigned Dalli, but didn't... at a time when he had no qualms arresting the less prominent and 'important' of the suspects in question.

So far the only answers have been supplied by neither Busuttil, who is making the allegation, nor Rizzo, whose testimony sparkled all this off - but by ordinary Nationalists on Facebook... and I need hardly say that they have all to date been deeply unsatisfactory. We were told that the Police Commissioner's hands were tied because of Dalli's health condition. And yet I know of several cases where people were arrested regardless of health problems. I have even heard of individuals who overdosed on heroin, who were brought back from the very threshold of death by doctors at the local hospital...  only to find themselves handcuffed in their hospital bed with the police waiting to cart them off to the Floriana depot. 

And yes, it is true that health issues can sometimes result in complications at trial stage. There may be delays, and in some cases even acquittals based on health considerations (e.g., suspect in hospital, deemed unfit to stand trial, and all that).

But those considerations do not affect the police's decision to press charges against an individual suspect in the first place. They only affect the way the case subsequently unfolds in court.

Seeing as what we are ultimately talking about here is a possible case of double standards within the Maltese justice system - how some animals are clearly more equal than others when it comes things as the police deciding to press charges - the general public has a clear and direct interest in knowing exactly why the police chose to charge Zammit but not Dalli... more so when its own former police commissioner testifies in court that he himself believed that others should also have been arrested.

Given the seriousness of the implications - I believe the word for this is discrimination, and it is usually considered grounds for a mistrial - I for one am simply flabbergasted that Busuttil would first fire off such a damning accusation, and then not only fail to substantiate it in any way... but also refuse to even address the many imponderables within his own statements.

Meanwhile I have to admit that my expectations of Busuttil as leader were not exactly vertiginous, given his performance in the election campaign. But that he would kick-start his career by echoing Alfred Sant on moral convictions (of all things)...?

Honestly, I wouldn't have expected it in a million years.