MaltaToday previous editions

MT 17 April 2016

Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/667669

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 24 of 63

25 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 17 APRIL 2016 Opinion Malta has been an EU member state since 2004. Yet the only time the EPP awoke to the existence of this 'threat' was last week… when one of its own members was affected. Hmm. How very alike all political organisations eventually start looking, when you eventually start looking at them. In any case, there you have it: Jason Azzopardi's guide to reforming the justice system, in two simple steps. Guaranteed to work every time, of course. But it works particularly well when you are on the receiving end of the sort of criminal action you would have no hesitation initiating yourself. Ah, well, I guess that's why they call him the 'Shadow Justice Minister'. Not a shadow of justice anywhere to be seen… As for the rest of us, down here on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder… neither step is actually available. Oh, sure, we could all try to intimidate the courts by shouting and stamping our feet on its doorstep, under the noses of the police… just see how far that would get you. But few among us can precipitate an international media storm just by snapping our fingers. You have to be propped up by a party with international affiliations for that. What this also means is that Evarist Bartolo was right, when he spoke – in a different context – about 'laws for gods' and 'laws for animals'. I am unfamiliar with the actual Roman proverb he was quoting there… but it is undeniable that justice works in different ways, when the people to whom it is meted fall into the 'god' category. Azzopardi was just one example. Other, equally unpalatable ones abound. Starting with the one Bartolo was actually talking about. It is not just the law courts that apply different weights and measures for 'gods' and 'animals'; the country's fiscal authorities have likewise handled the Panamagate case with far less zeal than they would show a lesser mortal with unanswered tax questions. It reminds me of the classic Mastercard ad. "Being a Cabinet Minister and the OPM's chief of staff? Priceless. For everyone else, there are money laundering laws…" But the most blatant one of the lot also occurred this week. It's a bit complicated, but I'll try and keep things as simple as I can. Zurrieq's former mayor, Ignatius Farrugia, was recently sentenced to four days' imprisonment for 'harassing' a certain Daphne Caruana Galizia, blogger, at a festa a couple of years ago… What? No, I didn't get that the wrong way round. Ignatius Farrugia really was the one found guilty of 'harassment'. It is but one of many ironies ignited by Ignatius there… but let us stick (as with Azzopardi) to the question of how the case actually panned out in the end. It transpired that the sentence had been handed down in error – the crime of harassment isn't punishable by prison at law – and, as has so often happened in the past, we were simultaneously reminded that there is no actual legal remedy available for this sort of miscarriage of justice. The only solution? A Presidential pardon. And again: in a case with clear political connections, the judicial process suddenly warped into light speed. Lesser mortals who find themselves behind bars usually have to apply for a Presidential pardon; their application is then subject to scrutiny by an advisory board, which goes on to recommend a 'yes' or 'no' to the President's office. The process can take months… during which the applicant remains in prison the whole time. Not in this case, however. In this case, the Presidential pardon was granted almost automatically. OK, I won't begrudge Ignatius his good fortune; it seems there genuinely was a mistake in the sentence… and we genuinely do not have any other way of getting wrongly convicted people out of jail. But why only this case? Why are Presidential pardons only ever issued to patch up leaks and holes in our judicial system? In recent years there have been two conspicuous requests for Presidential pardons on purely humanitarian grounds, and both were denied. To take the most recent first: Godfrey Ellul, a 67-year-old man dying of lung cancer, who has already served two-thirds of his sentence, wants to be released early so he can live his final days under house arrest instead of in jail. It doesn't seem an entirely unreasonable request, does it? In fact, it is the sort of request that often does result in a pardon (or equivalent) in any humane judicial system, anywhere. In Malta, however, Ellul eventually got to learn that his application had been turned down – after several weeks awaiting a reply – on the TVM news. No reason given. Though Malta technically lacks the death penalty, he was nonetheless sentenced (without appeal) to die in jail. That's a "law for animals" right there, if I ever saw one. The other case was that of Daniel Holmes: imprisoned for 12 years for an offence which has since been decriminalised… and for which other people have been sentenced to far less. Once again, the request for a Presidential pardon was turned down, with no reason given. And in other news, a rogue oil trader who was directly implicated in a major government corruption scandal… Ah, but we all know that already. Gods and animals, did I say? Gods and monsters, more like it… The EPP was right to diagnose Malta's criminal libel and slander laws as 'undemocratic' but it never spoke out about this 'threat' before The only solution? – a Presidential pardon. And in a case with clear political connections, the judicial process warped into light speed Jason Azzopardi (left) and Ignatius Farrugia

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of MaltaToday previous editions - MT 17 April 2016