Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1008890
24 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 29 JULY 2018 OPINION AMAZING, how a mere 15 months can change people's entire outlook on issues such as 'justice'. I feel I ought to congratulate all those out there who have so suddenly (and inexplicably) discovered such principles as 'the benefit of the doubt', 'the presumption of innocence', and – above all – 'the burden of proof'... even if the same people were all busy denying their very exist- ence until just last Sunday. Why now, I wonder? Why not 15 months ago, when timely acknowledgement of these all-important justice principles might have spared so many people so much em- barrassment today? But let's recap a little. It was in April 2017 that Daphne Caruana Galizia came out with the claim that 'Michelle Muscat was the ultimate ben- eficiary owner of Egrant Inc.'... which, if true, would have destroyed Muscat's political career, and possibly landed both him and his wife in jail for up to 18 years. Oh, that reminds me: for those who, to this day, are still trying to minimise the issue by arguing that 'Muscat would never have gone to prison'... bear in mind that before the election, the Nationalist Party had even put up posters depicting Joseph and Michelle Muscat already behind bars: a chilling warning of what was to come, had that party gone on to win the 2017 election. Yet interestingly enough, the same people who applauded that poster over a year ago, now recoil in horror at the idea that the perpetrators of another crime – a real one, this time – might have to likewise end up behind bars. Erm... what do these people think, exactly? That 'prison' exists only for Laburisti, while those who share their own po- litical beliefs get to enjoy some special, permanent 'Get Out of Jail Free' card? The scary thing is... yes, actu- ally, that is precisely how some people out there think. But back to the original allegation. To substantiate her claim, all Daphne uploaded was a hand- typed transcript of a document – the famous 'declaration of trust' – linking Michelle Mus- cat to that company. And hey presto! Many magically found themselves with enough rope in their hands to hang both the Prime Minister and his wife, without any judicial process whatsoever. We were also told that a digital copy had been 'uploaded to the Cloud'; where it seems to have remained, in nebulous form, ever since. But tell you what: once we're all in argument mode anyway, let us, for argument's sake, im- agine that someone used the same methods to make very different allegations about very different people. Consider a scenario where a random blog- ger and/or journalist publicly accused YOU (yes, YOU) of being a child-molester/serial killer; that you kidnapped, tor- tured and murdered dozens of little children, and buried their lifeless bodies under the tiles of your kitchen floor. Would you accept, as the sole evidence to 'prove' your guilt of those horrific crimes, a typed transcript of a document that no one had ever seen? I somehow doubt it. Once your howls of indignation, outrage, shock and horror eventually subsided – around a decade later – my guess is that you would have demanded cast- iron proof of those claims... while reserving the right to avail yourself of the full extent of the law, in pursuit of justice and the truth, should the al- legations prove unfounded. Now: what do you think would happen if, 15 months later, a magisterial inquiry found (after digging up your kitchen floor, naturally) that: a) there were no dead bodies of children buried anywhere on your property; b) there had never been any reports of little children even going missing, still less being murdered; c) the document in question turned out to be a fake, and; d) all the other nuggets of information purporting to link you with that atrocity were likewise fabrications? I'll spare you the bother of thinking – after all, it seems to a herculean effort with certain people – and just tell you myself. Judging by people's reactions to the Egrant inquiry today... even under those circumstances, a sizeable chunk of the popula- tion would still remain 100% convinced that you are, in fact, a serial child torturer and murderer. It would matter not a jot that no bodies were ever found; they'd simply say you buried them somewhere else. Nor would they care that there wasn't even any reason to suppose that any child ever got murdered in the first place. They would argue that 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'... or other such equivalent gibberish that translates, very simply, into: 'we don't like you, therefore you are automatically guilty of anything you are accused of (and no, you're not allowed a defence either)'. And of course, their instant, knee-jerk reaction to the inquiry which disproved the allegation would be to sim- ply discredit it out of hand. As they are now doing with Egrant; never mind that they themselves had accepted an unproven allegation as Gospel- truth without even seeking to verify it; they are now just as firmly convinced – in some cases, without even having read the executive summary – that the inquiry must perforce be an automatic whitewash. Well... good for them! Like I said earlier, it's healthy to be sceptical, when confronted with a claim you think there is reason to doubt. (Might have been a lot healthier had we all adopted that attitude from day one... but hey, better late than never). So let's go along with their new-found scepticism, and assess the inquiry's findings on the basis that the allegations were all along correct... which also means that the inquiry must, by definition, have been somehow flawed. The first thing we would have to do – quite possibly the only thing – is come up with a plau- sible narrative that provides a thorough explanation for all the inconsistencies flagged by Aaron Bugeja's report. Nobody has done this so far; doubt has been cast on this or that detail here and there, yes.... but a comprehensive, composite picture that both discredits the inquiry, and proves Muscat's ownership of Egrant? That has not been forthcoming to date. Let's try it ourselves: starting with the contradictions that emerged from the testimo- nies of both Daphne Caruana Galizia and the (presumed) whistleblower, Maria Efimova. On April 27, Daphne testified that she had been in posses- sion of a copy of the Egrant declaration of trust. On 31 May, she testified that she never had a copy of the same document... but that she had seen printouts shown to her by Efimova. Efimova, on her part, told the magistrate that "it was Caruana Galizia who showed her the declarations of trust for Egrant and Sahra FZCO. Caruana Galizia never told her from where she got copies of the declarations of trust. Efimova said she never took any copies or photos of these documents when she worked at Pilatus Bank". She also testified that the documents she had seen – i.e., which she claimed had been shown to her by Caruana Galizia – had no letterheads. Raphael Vassallo Our newly discovered 'burden of proof' applies just as much to this scenario, as any other. If you still think the Egrant inquiry was a whitewash... prove it The 'burden of proof' still applies, you know Expression of Interest: Invitation to submit Proposals for the Lease of Property in Gozo The Director General (Operations) within the Ministry for Gozo notifies that sealed expressions of interest marked: EOI/A0718 Expression of Interest: Invitation to submit Proposals for the Lease of Property in Gozo will be received in the tender box, at the Procurement Unit at the Ministry for Gozo, St. Francis Square, Victoria, Gozo, by not later than 10.00 a.m. of 10 th August 2018. Interested parties may either download a copy of the Expression of Interest document from the Ministry for Gozo website mgoz.gov.mt or request a copy by sending an email to procurement.mgoz@gov.mt clearly indicating Advert Number EOI/A0718.