Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1520947
out with a whimper, instead of a bang' (like so many others before it – including Egrant – have been known to do). Either way, then, this case will almost certainly end up in a 'Big Bang': the total and utter annihilation of one, or the oth- er, of those opposing camps. How, then, can they both be so equally keen on precipitating that end-game, themselves? But wait, the question only gets more complicated. One of the reasons Muscat gave, when filing his request, was that: "as there are indications that the report is already in the hands of third parties, especially in the hands of those who had themselves instigated this in- quiry, there is already the risk that someone could try and be selective in the publication of this report in order to create an imbalance." Once again, there is little need for any 'translation app', this time round. 'Those who had themselves instigated this inquiry' is a fairly unmistaka- ble allusion to Repubblika; and if Muscat is so very convinced that the NGO already has a copy of (all or parts of) the in- quiry report in its possession… ... then, um… (see what I mean, when I said this was complicated?)… it should al- so follow that: 'Joseph Muscat knows, that Repubblika knows, that the magisterial inquiry will only prove his own inno- cence, once and for all'. Which brings us back full-circle: if Repubblika really DOES know that… it would surely be fight- ing tooth-and-nail AGAINST its publication (as it had done against Muscat's original re- quest for a copy, last month). On its own part, Repubblika has consistently denied Mus- cat's claims: "We don't know what is in the inquiry, but we want to know, and want the Maltese and Gozitan people to know, what is in it, as if it found that crimes were com- mitted then everyone is a vic- tim of those crimes…." But this only raises other questions of its own. Let us, for argument's sake, all 'agree to agree' with the above state- ment, for now. Should the re- sults of this magisterial inquiry be made accessible to the gen- eral public? Why yes, of course. That is, after all, what it means to be 'transparent and ac- countable' (And besides: why spend E11 million on a docu- ment, if we're not even going to be allowed to read the damn thing, when it's finished?) Should, however, those re- sults be made public, precise- ly NOW? As a matter of such urgency, too? And if so… why? Reason I ask is that – always assuming that all the regular procedures will be followed, in this case as in all others – the contents of that magisterial inquiry will be 'made public' pretty damn soon, you know. The process will begin in just over a week's time: on 28 May, when Joseph Muscat will be formally arraigned before a magistrate; and when the charge sheet itself will be read out loud, in a courtroom which will no doubt be packed to the rafters. This, by the way, will mark the first time we can actual- ly talk about the crimes with which Muscat REALLY stands accused of: without having to rely exclusively on his own ver- sion of events (and even then, conveyed only through regular Facebook status updates.) So, barring any dramatic, last-minute change in script – like, for instance, the mag- istrate throwing the case of of court; or Muscat himself en- tering an unexpected 'guilty' plea – what follows should be a (probably very lengthy) 'com- pilation of evidence stage', in which every last detail, of every last fragment of evidence presented in court (including where, and how, it was re- trieved), will be slowly entered into the public record, for all to marvel at. It remains to be seen, nat- urally, whether the Attorney General will actually submit the entire magisterial inquiry report, along with all other rel- evant documentation… but the precise details of its contents will all surely come out, during the case itself. Speaking of which: unless I am much mistaken, any case which entails a possible pris- on sentence of 18 years will also have to be heard before a jury… and once the jury is se- lected, its members (in theory, at least) will be temporarily 'shielded' from all media in- fluence – including access to newspapers, TV, social net- works, etc. – for the duration of the trial. Now: I am certainly not naïve enough to believe that this sys- tem actually works in practice; and in any case, it might take years before a jury is actually appointed, to begin with. Ei- ther way, however: if standard procedures are followed to the letter, the publication of the report should not really impact the outcome of the case itself, at all… so long as its contents emerge at the right time. If the document is published (in whole or in part) TODAY, however… it could, in theory, serve to pre-emptively 'con- dition' those possible future jury-members, one way or an- other, from long before they are even selected. And while I can easily see, at a glance, why both Joseph Mus- cat and Repubblika might have keen interests of their own in achieving that kind of result… …. I mean: do I really need to go on? It's not exactly what 'Malta's criminal justice sys- tem' is supposed to be all about, is it now? 11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 19 MAY 2024 OPINION Joseph Muscat has now requested that the Vitals Inquiry report be made public It remains to be seen, naturally, whether the Attorney General will actually submit the entire magisterial inquiry report, along with all other relevant documentation… but the precise details of its contents will all surely come out, during the case itself