Moviment Graffiti decries AG’s ‘shameful’ and ‘appalling’ reaction

Human rights pressure group says Attorney General fails to answer concerns raised on the role of the prosecution in the case of Suleiman Abubaker.

Crowd block street in front of Floriana Police HQ calling on police commissioner to resign
Crowd block street in front of Floriana Police HQ calling on police commissioner to resign

Moviment Graffiti has reacted with disappointment to a statement issued this morning by the Attorney General reacting to a protest held on Saturday.

A sizeable crowd of migrants and human rights activists had gathered outside the law court in Valletta to voice their concerns about the acquittal of the person accused of assaulting Suleiman Abubaker who had died as a result of the assault in Paceville.

The persons present also spoke about the recent assault and death of Osama Al Shzliaoy, who was found lying in a pool of blood early Saturday morning, in Paceville. Al Shzliaoy was one of the first persons to criticise the acquittal on Facebook and a few days later he suffered the same fate of Sulemain.

In a statement issued today, the Attorney General said that reports which appeared in the media accused the prosecution of racism and of having not been honest in its work.

"The statements had incorrectly said that the bouncer was accused of involuntary homicide, when in reality he was facing charges of causing grievous injury resulting in death," the AG said.

"It was reported that the case was not investigated immediately, when the Police went on site and started its investigations immediately."

The AG added that it was not true that the witness of the two French students was not heard as their sworn evidence was presented in Court during the compilation of evidence.

The Attorney General also insisted that it was not true that witnesses in the trial knew the accused. "The witnesses were police officers, experts and civilians," the AG said.

"It is therefore wrong and unfair to make statements that tarnish the judicial process and the prosecution with insinuations of racism and ulterior motives simply because one does not agree with the final verdict of the jurors. In a democratic society, respect for court judgements is a basic element that guarantees rights for all," the Attorney General said.

But in a reaction, Moviment Graffiti said the AG's reaction was "outright shameful".

"The AG completely failed to answer concerns raised with regards to the role of the prosecution in this case, that is, why it did not take an active role in court to prove the case," Graffiti's spokesperson Andre Callus said.

"The AG did not answer one single question on why the prosecution did not highlight in court the many weak points present in many of the testimonies given. Furthermore, it certainly does not help to lessen the fear that immigrants and African people are experiencing daily in Malta, and it basically proves the whole point of the press conference - i.e. that there is such a thing as institutional racism in Malta and that we should fight against it."

Callus said the "frankness" with which the AG dismissed their claims was "shocking, especially when considering the sentence that the bouncer who attacked Suleiman was given, which was simply a €500 fine for not having the license necessary to operate as a guard".

Callus said the AG's concluding remarks "have no substance when one takes notice of the evidence we presented showing the presence of institutional racism".

Callus said such evidence included the fact that in the case of Suleiman Abubaker, the victim was constantly referred to as "l-iswed" - the black one - and the fact that most of the witnesses present at court were obviously biased, such as the witness who was an owner of various clubs in Paceville who seldom let immigrants in.

"We also insist that in an important case such as this one, the French witnesses should have been brought to court to give their testimony, and not have their statement simply read out," Callus said.

"Indeed, in a democratic society, there should be respect towards court decisions and the rights of all should be guaranteed. However, is the AG implying that the court is above criticism and that it can operate in a discriminatory manner?" Callus said.

Referring to the press conference, Moviment Graffitti said that the number of people of different races who were present and united showed the possibility of having such a united front on a national scale.

"Institutional racism should be taken seriously and many Maltese citizens are indeed aware of this. The appalling apologetic statements of the AG will definitely not stop us from fighting against this unfortunate phenomenon present in our country," Callus said.

 

avatar
Movemivemnt Graffiti is run by a bunch of losers who have nothing better to do but inflame the situation. By having their usual small demonstrations will not win any maltese minds over but will make maltese see how naive some people really are. Good will is built by peoples good actions but not by name calling.
avatar
Institutional racism is a misnomer. Where left wing political activists cannot find evidence of individual racism to further their aims they simply invent it.Accusations are very hard to defend when the accusation cannot be defined although the AD does quite well.What the left and accompanying do-gooders are doing in Malta is mimmicking the agenda of their British and American counterparts.Europe should not be the dumping ground for all third world economic migrants, there are major problems on this continent already and if the Euro follows the predictions and plummets there will be trouble ahead.For the next move/moves of the Moviment Graffiti simply look at Britain and American history regarding the political left and do-goodery.Then pray to God.
avatar
Does an NGO have the right to express disagreement with the jurors' verdict of 'not guilty'? Yes, of course. Does it have the right to hold a press conference? Yes, of course. But in this case the protest or press conference was held on the steps of the law courts (then closed for the weekend). This looks very much like pressure on the courts and the judicial process. It is reminiscent of what we experienced in the 1970s and 1980s when mobs used to fill the courts and the streets nearby whenever a politically sensitive case was being heard. Moreover, the NGOs were not very wise to put immigrants up front as many of them have claimed refugee status because there is war - and hence no rule of law - in their countries. Are they in a strong position to lambast our judicial system?