What is there to hide?

The brutal efficiency with which government is acting in its proposed reform of magisterial inquiries is alarming. 

In just a matter of weeks since the Prime Minister instructed his Justice Minister to get things going, the proposal has gone from an unknown quantity to a Bill in parliament on which the debate at Second Reading stage is expected to start on Tuesday. 

At this rate, this could easily become the most controversial piece of legislation in recent memory to become law within the shortest timespan possible. 

The government is trying to paint this reform as some sort of exercise to safeguard ordinary citizens from persecution by those who want to abuse the judicial system. What the reform does, however, is to shield ministers, politicians and top public officials from scrutiny. 

As the law stands today, ordinary citizens can file a direct request with the court for a magisterial inquiry to be held if they suspect wrongdoing of sorts. It is another tool that ordinary citizens can use to keep politicians and public authorities in check. 

It is a tool that has been effective in bringing to justice several high-profile individuals, including former prime minister Joseph Muscat, Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri over corruption and money laundering charges. These cases are ongoing. 

The proposed reform that Abela & Co. so desperately want to implement undermines all this because it puts in multiple stumbling blocks intended to discourage ordinary citizens from seeking magisterial inquiries. 

Private citizens will be forced to first file a police report and only after a six-month period can they request that a judge seek clarifications from the police on the progress of their investigation. At this stage, the Criminal Court can order a magisterial inquiry to be held. 

But crucially, the proposed amendments also dictate that a higher level of proof will be required by the ordinary citizen to request an inquiry and any decision taken by the court on how to proceed should be based on the balance of probability rather than reasonable suspicion. 

In its detailed analysis of the proposed legal changes, Repubblika described government’s inquiry reform as democratic backsliding because it weakens the fight against corruption. 

“In a context where the only effective tool available to Maltese citizens to ensure that grand corruption is prosecuted has, over several years, proven to be their right to petition magistrates to conduct inquiries, the removal of such a right is a serious backsliding in the country’s rule-of-law framework,” Repubblika said. 

Former chief justice Silvio Camilleri also warned that the reform will “only serve to shield politicians and their persons of trust from investigation”. 

He went as far as saying that the government has “captured” the police and the AG’s office and the proposed reform “seeks to tie up all remaining loose ends”. 

This leader endorses Repubblika’s conclusion and agrees with the sentiment expressed by the former chief justice. 

There is nothing genuine about the proposed reform in so far as it concerns the right of ordinary citizens to request a magisterial inquiry. 

The exercise was a knee-jerk reaction to five requests for public inquiries filed by former MP Jason Azzopardi over the Christmas period. The inquiries targeted ministers Clint Camilleri and Silvio Schembri and several other people, connected to entities or projects that fall within their purview.  

For different reasons, all five requests were refused by the duty magistrates who received them, which means no investigations were started. Azzopardi has a pending appeal against the decision in the case concerning Schembri. 

This state of affairs shows that the current framework does have safeguards in place to stop inquiries from happening if the necessary elements are not met. 

In contrast, two other requests filed by Azzopardi last summer were accepted and magisterial inquiries are underway. The cases concern the national identity management agency, Identita, and the local law enforcement agency, LESA. 

Within this context, this leader has serious misgivings over government’s true intention behind this reform. This does not mean that certain aspects related to inquiries should not change. Giving victims of crime or their heirs access to the inquiry report at no cost and affording them the right to be informed of an inquiry’s progress are two such instances where reform is needed. 

But using these positive changes as a selling point, while sliding in other changes that limit the right of ordinary citizens to request an inquiry, is wrong. 

It just raises serious suspicion that government is rushing through these changes because it fears some form of investigation that could embarrass it. Really and truly, what is Robert Abela scared of? What is there to hide? People deserve answers.