Hands in the air! Give me your source!

Thank God for the Opposition. The description in itself illustrates the function of the parliamentarians who will spend the next five years facing the government benches. The Nationalist Party cried foul when it realised Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia had sat in on interviews for new recruits at the Security Service.

Now, let us for a moment forget that in the past 15 years, the security service was used as a pawn by the former government and managed according to the whims of its security chief.

I say this with no regret, and I continue to insist that in the previous administration the security service would go beyond its remit, and this included phone-tapping journalists.

I need only mention that the first security chief was George Grech, who was forced to resign from the post of Commissioner of Police and chief of the security service as a result of a story published by this newspaper. The last security chief was also forced to resign, because he ran over an elderly man and drove away - a fact also revealed by this paper.

His name was Godfrey Scicluna.

The latter will also be remembered for doing f**k all about the so-called oil scandal. This means taking all the relevant documents on the subject and discussing them with the secretary of a cabinet minister.

The two security chiefs had something in common: they were, how shall we put this, "close to the PN" and trusted by the government of the day.

But none of this should diminish the zeal of the opposition - led by Simon Busuttil - to point out illogical political decisions. Even though every time he talks I get the shivers and wonder how he can find the courage to look someone in the eye when he himself, or rather his party, is doing just the same.

And no matter how nice and rational and forceful Minister Manuel Mallia is - and I say this with some conviction - there is little doubt in my mind that the security service should be the sole responsibility of someone else.

The question is, Who could it be?

This country - and this includes us journalists - is always talking of a system which is free of political interference and one which does not depend on the subjectivity and bias of the political class.

Yet, once again, the question is, Who can do the job?

I mean, even President George Abela fails to inspire me. Remember the Olaf Terribile case, when the president asked Prime Minister Gonzi to investigate who had leaked 'details of the president's inner circle' to MaltaToday (see below)? On that occasion, I saw a president more concerned about who 'the bastard' could have been than about the story itself.

This small country does not have a regiment of independently minded people. It lacks the concept of a greater good or that the nation comes first. Most of the time, it works as follows: my pocket, my family, my friends, my party and then (only then, and only possibly) my country.

Sitting and supervising the choice of the security service is a problem. It is simply not done.

This does not only apply to the chief of the security service. It also applies to other sections of the executive: the army officers, the officers in Inland Revenue, the judiciary... and so on and so forth.

In recent years, the government has acted to control all the institutions because it is in their interest to do so. If you have a problem, the way to solve the problem is to talk to the politician, because the politician pulls the strings.

I dread thinking what will happen if a commissioner of police or chief of security receives a tip-off about either the home affairs minister or some other minister.

It could be the prime minister, for all I know.

Well, as expected, they will do as they have always done: look the other way and shred the evidence.

The system needs to be reviewed. It will need some positive thinking; and I really do not believe that this is a job for the parliamentary group. What we need is an independent and respected personality (such as former judge Giovanni Bonello) who can come up with an equation or procedure which respects a changing society, wherein the politician serves and, with all due respect, is not served.

***

On Friday, the police called at our offices and asked our editor Matthew Vella to accompany them to the general headquarters to be questioned on a story carried on 9 June, on a court decision to have an investigated person's assets in Malta frozen, which MaltaToday published. I will not go into the merit of why this story, as it turned out, could not be published.

On Friday the newsroom was headless, with me abroad, and Matthew Vella serving as editor-in-chief. At this point, I must go into the merit and method of the two-hour interrogation. First the inspector asked questions about the source of the story in question and how it had been leaked. Secondly, Matthew Vella was told he would be locked-up. And after the investigation, the police said they would ask Vella for his fingerprints.

I can say that this whole matter is very worrying. If Inspector Aquilina wants to prosecute because of a court order, he should proceed. But if he wants to probe for our sources, little does he know that he has embarked on a collision course with some serious implications.

Sources are not only sacred - but they will remain so. And if the principles of the free press and free speech have not seeped through the thick walls of the police HQ, they had better start now.

Some three years back, a story in MaltaToday revealed how the presidential office had been run. The President was sure that the leak came from his former personal secretary Olaf Terribile (today an assistant to Minister George Vella).

So he asked then-prime minister Lawrence Gonzi to set up a tribunal to investigate the case. Little did I know that the government has the legal authority to query citizens and the press. And so they embarked on a witch-hunt to prove that Olaf Terribile was our source.

He was not. Poor Olaf - I did not even know the guy, nor had I ever met him. I'm afraid that the politicians' point of view and that of the executive has always been to shoot the messenger and then, if possible, demonise him.

In the case of the police, it goes one step further. They arrest and prosecute you.