Governments are not above the law

Yesterday's high drama illustrated that - contrary to a widespread impression in this country - the Maltese government is not actually above the law.

Sadly, it would appear that among the many who disagree with this state of fact, or who simply do not understand it, is none other than Prime Minister Joseph Muscat himself: who, until late yesterday evening, was actively considering breaking local and international law by illegally deporting 102 Somali immigrants to Libya, in direct defiance of the human rights convention (and other articles of international legislation).

Had Joseph Muscat actually embarked on this initiative - and there is still a chance he might, as he has so far not entirely ruled out mass deportations in future - it would have been a blatant and quite frankly provocative breach of numerous treaties to which Malta is signatory.

Mass deportations are in fact expressly prohibited, in no uncertain terms, by Protocol 4 of Article 4 in the convention of human rights: which is also entrenched in the Constitution, making it part and parcel of Malta's supreme law.

The wording of the proviso is unambiguous in the extreme: 'Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited' - without any circumstances attached.

Add to the situation the fact that we are also dealing with asylum seekers from Somalia - who are universally recognised as bona fide asylum seekers, as they hail from a war-torn country - and the initiative is not just illegal: it is also profoundly immoral.

Besides: there is also a very clear ruling on this score by the European Court of Human Rights, which - with specific reference to Italy's pushback policy of 2010 - has made it clear that deportations cannot be legally effected in circumstances where their safety cannot be guaranteed.

Even without all these considerations, the fact remains that the 40 asylum seekers would have been denied the possibility to even apply for asylum - a right which is supposedly guaranteed by the same charter of human rights, and which cannot therefore be denied by a law-abiding government.

Taken together, all these considerations imply that Muscat was ready and willing to pursue a course of action that would have placed Malta in a state of illegality in the eyes of the international community. Such cavalier disregard for human rights is after all not the sort of thing one associates with the sort of country many of us would like to see Malta evolving into; on the contrary, it is what we associate with the world's rogue states.

Yet in the end it had to take a verbal notification from the European Court of Human Rights - as revealed by Muscat in parliament late yesterday - to force an eleventh-hour 'stay of execution', of the sort one associates with television courtroom dramas.

And even now, the issue remains unresolved. Addressing Parliament yesterday, Muscat did not rule out deportation at a later date - indeed he did not rule out immediate deportation either, though it remains highly unlikely, given the severity of the possible consequences, that Malta would push its luck so far. But government's official line remains that 'all options remain open' - even if one of these options is blatantly illegal.

Nor is this the only problem raised by the prime minister in parliament yesterday. As Muscat himself pointed out, the current situation must also be seen in the broader context of an immigration influx that has already inflamed passions without any additional help from the political class.

Given the extent of undisguised racist sentiment on the island - a sentiment which has often extended to violence in the past, aimed at NGOs who work with immigrants, and also media contributors who defend human rights - one would expect a modicum of responsibility from a prime minister who has an obvious obligation towards the rule of law.

It was therefore disheartening to hear Joseph Muscat use heavily loaded words like 'intolerable' to describe the immigration phenomenon; and, worse still, to criticise the NGOs involved in the welfare of migrants for reporting Malta to the European court - as if insisting on observation of the law makes one a villain, while proposing to break it makes one a hero.

This is highly irresponsible on Muscat's part. The Prime Minister clearly needs to be reminded that, like all national leaders, he has a responsibility towards the general public: a responsibility not to unnecessarily inflame sentiments, or to provoke situations which may and often do end in violence.

By adopting such an overtly antagonistic attitude towards both migrants and the voluntary workers involved in migration, he is merely fanning the flames of xenophobia in an already volatile and unstable situation.

This would be bad enough if there wasn't already a history of racially-motivated violence in this country. Considering, however, the clear and present danger in which some of these volunteers operate, the sort of language used by Muscat in parliament yesterday can only be described as grossly irresponsible.

Above all, however, the government needs to be reminded - and was reminded, by the ECHR, no less - that it is not and cannot be above the law. This is such a basic consideration that it is surprising it even needs to be pointed out, in a country that has been an EU Member State for almost 10 years.