Re-exhuming the past? | Dione Borg

During the past days, the Nationalist Party has been commemorating the 25th anniversary of Raymond Caruana's murder in the PN's Gudja club, along with other episodes of political violence dating back to the late 1980s. Is this a case where the PN is re-exhuming the past because it feels uncomfortable with its present?

Dione Borg says that as a journalist, he is very familiar with this accusation, which is levelled against him whenever he delves on this subject.

While firmly believing in the duty to remember these events, Borg believes that there is nothing to be gained for the PN by reminding people of what happened 25 years ago.

"I believe that the Maltese people vote on present day issues and what happened 25 years ago has no bearing on elections. The Maltese people have lived through these times and it has already expressed an electoral verdict based on these events... the Maltese people have enacted the changes brought about by these events and all this is now history."

What disappoints Borg is that the country has not matured enough to establish a shared truth on what happened during those times.

"Once both parties and society in general recognise what exactly happened in a more factual way, society would have moved forward a lot."

Borg points out that the PN is itself not that keen on commemorating the past to the extent that the violence which occurred in the 1970s is not commemorated.

Ever since 1987, the PN has only commemorated Raymond Caruana's murder.

"The PN simply commemorates Caruana's death by laying a wreath on his grave and organising a mass."

According to Borg, the only reason why the PN is organising activities in a more structured way this year is simply because 2011 happens to be the 25th anniversary of these events. 

Borg himself feels a sense of historical duty to record these events. Apart from being arrested twice in connection to his political activism, Borg was not himself a victim of political violence, but he was deeply touched by some of the events.

"For me it was unacceptable that we attended a meeting where the police ended up shooting at our friends - a friend like Mario Pavia, who was shot at during the Rabat meeting..."

Borg felt a deep social need for a publication which would document these events for posterity.

Yet despite having participated in these political events on the side of the Nationalist Party, he still insists that his Liberta Mhedda was not a partisan publication.

"My book includes the perspective of all sides, including interviews with then prime minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici... I tried to present a holistic document which includes all the judicial details of each case, to fill a void in our historiography."

Apart from Borg's book there is very little historical research on this sensitive part of Maltese history.  Many academics have shied away from delving on these events.

Borg attributes this to the desire of Maltese society to move on after 1987.

"After 1987, there was an enormous change in Maltese society.  It was not just any election but one in which the country was at a crossroads. The country changed not just politically but socially and economically. The country was so absorbed in these changes that it left behind what it had passed from. This is why silence predominated."

Borg also points out that we would be mistaken in dedicating all of our attention to the 1980s, while ignoring similar events in the 1970s.

"Nationalists commemorating Independence Day in Valletta the 1970s were attacked in the same organised way as in Tal-Barrani and Rabat, in which police teamed up with thugs to attack demonstrators. These events are never commemorated not even by the PN."

In his book, Borg focused on episodes of political violence perpetuated by police under a Labour government. In so doing, has he absolved the Nationalist Party from any responsibility. 

Borg admits that the scope of his book was limited to the role of the police when dealing with episodes of political violence.

"Facts proven in court establish that the police during those times behaved very badly.  My aim to look into what the police did at that time. Therefore, my book leaves out many other important cases like the murders of Karin Grech and Lino Cauchi."

But Borg promises that he will go in depth on the Grech case in his new programme Evidenza, which deals with unsolved cases.

"It will be dealt with in the same way as the case of Raymond Caruana."

As regards Grech's case, Borg believes that the most likely thesis is the one linked to the trade union issue between the Mintoff government and the medical profession.

"The main investigators believe that this is the case."

But while it could well be true that most violence was committed by Labour thugs in collusion with the police, there could also be an element of provocation. For example, how responsible was it for the PN to insist on organising a meeting in Zejtun in such a volatile situation? Was this simply an attempt to provoke a violent reaction which suited the political designs of the PN at that time?

"Every party has a legal right to organise a meeting wherever it likes. It was the government of the day and police, and not the Nationalist Party, who were obliged to ensure that no violence occurred in Zejtun. Once the PN decided that it wanted to organise a meeting in Zejtun in the same way the PL used to organise meetings in Sliema and B'Kara, it could not go back on its word. If it had done so, it would have given up on its battle for liberty and the rule of law after the courts had declared that the PN had every right to organise a meeting in Zejtun."

According to Borg, in Zejtun, Fenech Adami simply wanted to organise a normal meeting. "The crowd included elderly people, women and entire families. It was the same crowd which every week used to attend mass meetings. Nobody anticipated the scale of the violence."

But despite the PN's condemnation of political violence, Gianni il-Pupa - one of the most notorious thugs - ended up participating in PN meetings before the 1996 election after claiming that he had converted from a life crime. Yet a few years later, Psaila lost his life in an accidental fall while on the run from the police.

"In my opinion, Psaila was no longer the same person he was when he was involved in violence. People change and go through different phases in life. This does not mean that he changed completely, nor that he was reformed... only he can say that, from the place he is now."

Borg, who met Psaila a number of times after 1987, notes that after the 1987 election, thugs like Psaila no longer felt part of an organised group and their affiliation with Labour was weakening.

"They were no longer able to get a kick from acts of vandalism... They started to disassociate themselves from Labour... Psaila probably went one step more by attending activities organised by the PN."

But Borg makes it clear that this was a case of the PN embracing Psaila within its ranks.

"Psaila attended activities which were open to everyone. He was not chosen for any role in the PN."

As a journalist, Borg himself has developed a sense of friendship with some of these former Labour thugs, like Alfred 'l-Indjan' Desira. Borg also believes that it was the Labour government which was using these people rather than the other way round.

"I have no doubt that it was the Labour Party which was using these people in the same way as it was using the police. Let us not forget that the shots fired at the Tarxien club came from a car involved in a carcade of a particular Minister."  According to a witness, one of these cars was taken to the depot immediately after the carcade.

"It is clear that some police were in collusion with these thugs."

How does he reconcile himself to the fact that Inspector Joe Psaila - found guilty of human rights violations by the courts - was promoted to the rank of assistant commissioner under a Nationalist government? Moreover Charles Cassar, who led the Special Mobile Unit, went on to lead the Special Assignment Group under the PN.

Borg does not beat around the bush making it clear that if it were for him, these officials should not have been promoted.

"Certain promotions which were given were misunderstood by Maltese society... If it was up to me I would not have given these promotion... I disagree with certain promotions. But am a journalist, not a politician."

However, Borg points out that the police force at that time was so predominantly Labourite that it was impossible to promote Nationalist-leaning officials who were in the lower ranks of the force.

He also points out that the majority of police involved in cases of torture, false witnesses, and frame ups were expelled from the police force.

But Borg recognises that a number of police officials were in face able to cover their tracks well.

"There was not enough proof to incriminate everyone. For example, the police who shot at Nationalist youths in Rabat were never brought to justice as their faces were covered, and another section of the police had covered their tracks."

Ironically, it was Labour leader Alfred Sant who, as Prime Minister, expelled Cassar and Psaila from the police force. He is also widely credited for cleansing the Labour party of violent elements. 

But Borg shows less appreciation for Sant's merits in normalising the country than I expect.

"Sant was the party's President in this period. As far as I can recall, Sant never condemned these people before 1987..."

Borg also contends that by Sant's election as Labour leader in 1992, Labour thugs were no longer active in the Labour Party.

But what about his decision to expel Cassar and Psaila from the police force?

"If he felt this was the best decision for the police force and society, he did well to take this decision."

But Borg expresses his bafflement at the disappearance of a never-published inquiry on frame-ups during Sant's tenure in office.

"After 1987, Eddie Fenech Adami had asked for a magisterial inquiry on the various frame-ups. Fenech Adami felt that the report should not be published, as it was not conclusive. When Sant was elected, this report disappeared from Castille. Sant says that he had asked for a copy of the report but never had a chance to see it."

Present Labour leader Joseph Muscat was still at primary school when Nationalist supporters were beaten in Zejtun and Raymond Caruana was murdered. Is it not unfair to taint him with these events?

"What I expect from Labour is to recognise the facts and how these occurred. A general apology is positive not enough. What is most important is to agree on how and why these events occurred. It is true that Muscat was young at that time, but Muscat now carries the burden of Labour's history. He should even be more cautious because he did not live those times"

But if we persist on expecting Labour to redress its historical wrongs, would we not risk getting lost in a never-ending cycle of rights and wrongs, with Labourites demanding an apology for injustices like the interdett?

But Borg sees no connection between episodes of political violence in the 1970s 1980s and the sufferings of Labourites in the 1960s.

"The imposition of mortal sin on Labourites in the 1960s was a conflict between the Church and the Labour Party. It should be discussed on its own merits. It is ridiculous to demand an apology for the Interdett in return for an apology on political violence in the 1980s. Whenever a political party demands an apology it should do so on the merits of each particular case."

Liberta Mhedda includes a picture of present police commissioner John Rizzo escorting Pietru Pawl Busuttil to court. At that time, Rizzo served as secretary to then-commissioner Lawrence Pullicino, who was later imprisoned for his role in the murder of Nardu Debono.

Borg makes it clear that Rizzo had "absolutely no role in the frame up of Pietru Pawl Busuttil".

"Rizzo was not present in Pietru Pawl Busuttil's farmhouse. Neither was he involved in any of the interrogations. It does not result that he was in any way involved in the investigation related to the case."

So what was Rizzo doing in the photo?

"Rizzo was given an order to escort Pietru Pawl Busuttil after he was interrogated in the depot by other officials and escorted him to court so that other police would accuse him of murdering Caruana."

25 years later, Raymond Caruana's case remains unsolved. We do not even know which police officers had framed Pietru Pawl Busuttil.

Dione Borg has no doubt about the political nature of the case.

"It has been forensically proven that the weapon which killed Raymond Caruana in the PN club in Gudja is the same one used in the shoot out against the Tarxien PN club, in the Tal-Barrani incidents and the frame-up of Pietru Pawl Busuttil."

Experts have concluded that not only was the same weapon employed in both cases, but that the dynamics of the shooting were also similar.

"This shows that whoever fired in Hal Tarxien probably fired in Gudja too. There is a clear forensic link established by ballistic experts."

So why was the culprit never found?

Borg blames this on the way the police treated the case in the days after the murder when instead of investigating the murder of Raymond Caruana members of the police force framed Pietru Pawl Busuttil.

"In those vital hours, the weapon was cleaned and put in Busuttil's farmhouse."

He also laments that the only vehicle involved in the Tarxien incident to be forensically examined was a Land Rover were other cars were not.

Borg doubts whether the truth can ever be established because this important evidence was deliberately removed. The only person arraigned for this murder was Nicolas Ellul - known as 'Ic-Caqwes' - who later died of an overdose.

According to Borg, there was never any evidence that Ellul fired, but that he possessed the weapon.

"Whoever killed Raymond Caruana did not want to kill anyone. He was probably showing off. But while in Tarxien the club was closed, it was clear that the Gudja club was open, lit, and that it was full of people. Out of 13 bullets, only one entered the club and killed Caruana. It could have been far worse as other people could have died." 

Borg expresses his regret that society is still owed an explanation for the deaths of Wilfred Cardona, Lino Cauchi, Raymond Caruana and Karin Grech.

"There are various indications that all four cases are tied to national and political events."