Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1104601
25 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 14 APRIL 2019 OPINION rection of an organised criminal network involved in a Malta- Libya-Sicily fuel smuggling racket? None of this was mentioned by Gomes, nor even featured in the rule of law committee's report. Miriam Dalli and Alfred Sant both brought it up in their own interventions, as you'd ex- pect… but they may as well not have bothered, because – let's face it – they were ultimately arguing with a bunch of empty chairs. Perhaps the most extraordi- nary (unheard) argument to be made in that (unattended) debate, was Gomes' claim that the Maltese government 'was doing everything in its power to get the three suspects acquit- ted'. Strange she would say that, because from where I'm sitting, it looks a whole lot like what Gomes is trying to do herself. For over a year now, she has been assiduously undermin- ing the legitimacy of the entire process that resulted in those arrests; she has insinuated that the suspects have somehow been scapegoated to ensure that the 'real' culprits go un- punished; that there is a 'plan to ensure they are released after 20 months' detention'; and she has even argued that the entire judicial process is itself unfit for purpose (suggesting that any verdict by the local courts, in any case, is automatically suspect). To date, of course, she has not presented so much as a jot of evidence to support even the tiniest of those claims. But then again.. why the hell should she, anyway? Ana Gomes was talk- ing to a bunch of empty chairs, too. And empty chairs cannot be blamed for not caring very much about things like 'evi- dence'… can they? The irony in all this is that one of those earlier predictions may well turn out to be self-fulfill- ing... and probably in a good deal less than 20 months. There is now more than a fair chance that those three suspects may indeed be acquitted: too much doubt has been cast on the circumstances of their arrest, and the intention behind their prosecution. Already, their defence lawyers are looking into possible legal loopholes to have the charges dismissed on technicalities (and lest I am misunderstood: that's just another way of saying they are doing their job). Just this morning, they argued in court that the 'note verbale' was taken in the absence of a lawyer… and that, therefore, their clients did not understand the full implica- tions of making their state- ments to the police (effectively rendering those statements inadmissible as evidence). You can't realistically blame them for trying that tack; espe- cially when so many criminal convictions (mostly involving drug trafficking) have already been successfully overturned on the same grounds. But the defence counsel has its own, naturally inbuilt reasons for trying to get those three men acquitted. What's the European Parliament's excuse? I am beginning to suspect that it all boils down to simple ignorance of the basic, most fundamental legal principles. Do MEPs like Ana Gomes, Sven Giegold, Sohie Int-Veld, etc., even understand that – by pouring so much baseless doubt on the entire judicial process surrounding this mur- der case – they are only provid- ing the defence counsel with all the ammunition it needs to call for a mistrial? Well, unlike 95% of the MEPs who went on to vote on that resolution, I followed the debate in the European Parlia- ment. On that basis I can only conclude that… yes, they do know. They must. The rule of law commission visited Malta twice; they have no conceiv- able excuse for not being aware of the evidence presented in court, and where it all points. Yet they there all were, in the European Parliament, passion- ately arguing with a bunch of empty chairs that… no, it all points somewhere else. Ah well… on the plus side, at least they had a debate about Malta's rule of law issues (well, 15 out of 750 did, anyway). To date, I have not heard about any plans to debate the arrest of Julian Assange in another EU member state, and its ugly implications for freedom of expression in the EU. It seems the European Parliament is suddenly no longer as keen to debate the collapse of European rule of law… when the orders to suppress freedom of expres- sion in Europe come directly from Donald Trump. And perhaps that's just as well, because… well, what can a bunch of empty chairs do about any of that, anyway? Except maybe make it just that little bit harder for the justice system to actually run its full course, unimpeded by misinformed nonsense? Quite frankly, it would be better to just leave those chairs empty, and not debate anything at all. So, when Miriam Dalli locked horns with Ana Gomes… and everyone in Malta got excited about it, like they were about to enter a mud- wrestling arena… well, to all other purposes they may as well have been having an idle chat in the lift. No one was listening. No one was even there to take note of the individual arguments, before voting on the issue under discussion