Resignations, apologies demanded over unfair police dismissals

Former police officers David Gatt, Ivan Portelli and Michael Buttigieg have demanded an apology from former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami for their unfair dismissal from the Corps in 2001, while pointing out that Police Commissioner John Rizzo left himself with no option but to resign, having assumed “full responsibility” for the affair under oath in court.

Their demands come in the wake of last Monday’s decision by the Court of Appeal to unreservedly uphold the verdict of the Civil Court (27 April 2004), which found that the Prime Minister and Police Commissioner Grech had acted unconstitutionally, and in violation of the universal charter of human rights, by ‘removing’ the three police officers from public service without allowing them the opportunity to defend themselves.

The case goes back to 2001, when Gatt, Portelli and Buttigieg received letters, signed by PM Eddie Fenech Adami, informing them they had been ‘removed’ from the Police Force.

David Gatt, who was a superintendent at the time, received his letter while on duty in court. Buttigieg found his waiting for him at home after being sent back from a ceremony during which he was supposed to be promoted to superintendent.

The law cited to justify their dismissal was Article 11(c) of the Police Act, which states that “it shall be lawful for the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission to remove from his office at any time a police officer who… should in the public interest no longer serve as a member of the Force.”

No official reason was given for their dismissal, although Commissioner George Grech – who ironically resigned the same year after finding himself embroiled in a sex scandal – claimed in court that the three police officers had been in contact with suspected criminals.

However, in April 2004 Mr Justice Joseph Azzopardi ruled that the Public Service Commission had violated one of the principles of natural justice by neither informing the three officers that they were under investigation, nor allowing them the opportunity to defend themselves from the charges.

In the course of the hearings it transpired also that Gatt’s phone had been tapped without a necessary warrant.