Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1443447
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 JANUARY 2022 INTERVIEW that Labour will win' there is also the proposal of an independent magistrate, with the power and resources to investigate corruption, for instance… But there could be problems with that proposal, too. At the risk of an exagger- ated comparison, the Italian 'Tangen- topoli' scandal has often been compared with a judicial 'coup d'etat': a single magistrate, wielding enough power to bring the entire State to its knees. Now: without questioning whether Antonio di Pietro was right to actually do that, at the time… wouldn't this proposal create the same conditions here? What safeguards are there, anyway, against abuse of power by the 'special inquiring magistrate' himself? First of all: I, and my party – and I have no doubt, the vast majority of this country – have full trust in the honesty, work ethic, seriousness, and sense of duty of our judges and magistrates. Secondly: the law itself provides that, when a magistrate finds that there is enough reason to commence a prosecution against a public officer … he has to send a detailed report – what we call a 'proces ver- bale' – to the Speaker of the House, to be immediately tabled in Parliament. This way, the people would know exactly how the magistrate had come to his con- clusions; what evidence he had collected; all the testimonies he had heard; why the charges are being pressed… the entire pro- cess would be transparent, from start to finish… With regard to your first point, however: are you so certain, that the vast majority shares your 'full trust' in the judiciary? You seem to be forgetting about former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo, who was con- victed and imprisoned for bribery; or the many questionable rulings that have sapped public faith in the law-courts ev- er since… All I can say to that is: God forbid, that we were to ever again go through a tragedy – or 'earthquake' – of the magnitude that you just mentioned: which is, to this day, a wound that hasn't fully healed. But the fact remains that, when your job is to draw up legislation…. you do have to believe that everyone will at least try to fulfil their obligations, as far as humanly possi- ble; and that otherwise, everyone will have to face up to their own responsibilities, and to their own conscience. But there are no guarantees; just as there is no guarantee that I will not be hit by a car, while crossing the street … no matter how many precautions I take. Now: what this proposal does, is give to a single magistrate: not so much the 'power' - I wouldn't even use that word, myself – but the 'responsibility', for six years, to inves- tigate government corruption; and where necessary, to commence such investiga- tions himself, on his own initiative. It shouldn't have to take an article in Mal- taToday – or The Times, or Lovin Malta, or whatever – for the authorities to take action. We are, after all, talking about pub- lic officials here. And public office, means public trust. So to corrupt a public official, is to corrupt public trust. It's as simple as that, really. So it's a responsibility, yes: but the fact that the magistrate needs to give a full, transpar- ent account to the Speaker, of all his actions and decisions… I think that's an important safeguard, right there. Let's turn to one of the more contentious proposals. The PN is now suggesting an overhaul of the 'Presidential pardon' system. My understanding is that, with the new legislation in place, the Presi- dent of the Republic will have the pow- er to decide on whether to grant such immunity to prosecution… 'on his own judgment'. Once again: aren't we giv- ing far too much discretionary power, to what is ultimately supposed to be only a 'ceremonial' role? For the sake of accuracy; yes, the President will be given the power – or responsibility, or authority: call it what you will – to de- cide, on his own judgment, whether or not to issue 'a certificate of immunity against self-incrimination', to anyone who will be able to reveal corruption. But what that means in practice is that the President will no longer have to consult with government (as is the case today). In- stead, it would be a magistrate to demand it; and the President would use his own judg- ment, to decide whether or not to acceded to the demand. At the end of the day, however, the entire process will be transparent. Once again, the Speaker will have to present all the documentation, and relevant details, in the House… and of course, there will be all the public scrutiny required, to see if that certificate of immunity was really needed, or not. Personally, however, I have no doubt that no President of the Republic would ever even dream of granting a certificate of im- munity, to someone who is not deserving… Come on, you're being naïve now. What about all the controversial pardons of the past? What about Zeppi l-Hafi? Melvin Theuma..? Thank you, how sweet: that's exactly the situation we wanted to avoid. For with the system we have today, the President of the Republic can only offer a pardon 'on the advice of the Prime Minister'. So for the first time ever – and this is major – we are giving the President of the Republic the full autonomy to decide such cases… 'on his own judgment'. And this would ensure that those experiences you mention, will not be repeated… Again, however, it boils down to 'faith'… this time, in the Presidency. But let's face it: all our past Presidents (except the first) have been former Cabinet min- isters. They obviously all have their own political biases, too. Besides: they now have to be appointed by a two-thirds majority. What would happen if the Na- tionalist and Labour Parties simply fail to reach that consensus, in future? Let's just say, I'm not as sceptical as you. During the appointment of the last Pres- ident, the Nationalist Opposition – even though there was no need for a two-thirds majority, at the time – gave its full support to Dr George Vella…. But you yourself just said: there are no guarantees. What would happen, in the (admittedly extreme) event that Prime minister Robert Abela were to nominate, say, Joseph Muscat as Malta's next Pres- ident? Would the PN offer its 'full sup- port' to him, too? You have to make a distinction, though, between what is 'possible', and what is 'probable'. What you're suggesting now is certainly possible… but I don't see it as very probable, myself. But I do see what you're driving at: for yes, the law is ultimately something that is 'made by human beings… for human be- ings'. It can be abused by human beings, too. So our duty, as legislators, is to propose the best possible law, under any given cir- cumstance. We cannot predict the future; but, in clear conscience, we can say that we have done our utmost – our very best, in fact – to produce the best possible legisla- tion: against abuse of power; against power of incumbency; and against institutional- ized corruption, which has become so ram- pant in recent years. And in clear conscience, I think that: yes, the Nationalist Party can say that… Fair enough: I'll close with this, then. Will the Nationalist Party be just as keen on enacting this legislation, if – to cite another improbable future event – it were to actually win the next election? Let me answer you this way: I remember that former Justice Minister Tonio Borg – in one of his last speeches, before taking up the post of European Commissioner – had suggested that 'the time had come, for the country to seriously consider the possibility of a full-time inquiring magistrate against corruption' (or words to that effect, any- way). Now: I may be incorrect on some of the details… but Tonio Borg was definitely still part of Gonzi's cabinet, when he said that. So I do believe that I come from a party which… OK, I admit that we have not al- ways been perfect, in the past; but we are definitely in a position to state that: we have no difficulty whatsoever in curtailing the power of government… or making politi- cians more accountable. And it's not just a question of "curtailing the power of Robert Abela's government", either: because, with all due respect – and whatever the polls may, or may not be say- ing – there is every chance that the Nation- alist Party will, in fact, be in government again later this year. I have both my feet planted firmly in the ground; I do my house visits, and I know what people out there are really saying…. so please: it's not such a foregone conclusion, that Labour will win the next election…. PHOTO: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTATODAY