Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/800760
Opinion 25 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 19 MARCH 2017 Busuttil. Like I said earlier, it's not an earth-shattering revelation. Many sitting MPs are also practising lawyers, and in that capacity they're in and out of court all the time. I would not, in brief, count this as one of the problematic examples. But there are several instances where it could be problematic... indeed, at a certain level the entire arrangement is in itself a problem. The lawyer-client relationship is not the same as that which exists between an elected representative and his or her constituents. Lawyers have obligations towards their clients, that politicians cannot justify sharing. There are confidentiality protocols. A lawyer who holds a client's brief may find himself in a dilemma if ever questioned by a parliamentary committee about the same client's activities. Admittedly, I can't think how that might ever arise from Busuttil representing Saddles, Tigullio and Ryan's Pub... but we don't know off-hand exactly which interest is being legally represented by which politician, do we? Which also means that, at any moment, we can't tell whether an MP like Busuttil – and it goes for all other MPs with similar professional commitments – is wearing his lawyer's hat, or that of a member of parliament. I hate to say it, but those hats are not interchangeable. This brings me to the other curious case of the week: the ongoing polemic of Mario de Marco's legal brief for the db Group. Obviously there are mammoth political implications here, including internal calls for de Marco's resignation as party deputy leader. But right now I'm more interested in the case for what it reveals about the professional state of politics these days. On paper, the actual scenario seems to pick up where the last one left off. Until 2014, Mario de Marco did legal work for the db Group while also doubling up as an MP. As with Busuttil, we do not collectively begrudge MPs who do professional work on the side. They've got to live too, we can all see that. But we can also see that the two hats sit uneasily on the same head. In comments to Saviour Balzan's television programme Xtra, de Marco said that as db's legal representative, he had a duty towards his client. He said this very matter-of-factly, as if it were self-evident to everyone. And to be fair, it is: most of the other 70 MPs likewise juggle between two unrelated political and professional hats. This is how one online comment captures that particular perception: "Dr. Mario de Marco was representing the db Group as a legal adviser rather than as the NP deputy leader, hence his loyalty is given to the db Group, similar to a lawyer who represents a criminal – whether a murderer, a rapist or a child abuser – doesn't mean that the lawyer is a criminal." It's a pertinent observation, but it also illustrates the intrinsic difference between the two hats. Yes, we all accept that the right to a defence implies that lawyers can maintain a distance from the individual cases they represent. But we do not extend that exception to politicians. A politician who defends 'a murderer, a rapist or a child abuser' (to stick to the same example) can expect to face political fall-out. A lawyer doesn't have that problem. From this point on the politician ramifications become important. De Marco argues otherwise, but elements within his own party view his position as conf licting with that of his party. It's hard to say whether they're right, because – let's face it – the situation has now become very messy indeed. On the one hand the PN has been busy forging links between the 'corrupt' db Group and its leverage with Labour in the ITS land transfer deal... next it emerges that the PN's own deputy leader was db's law yer at a time when the contract was still being drawn up... and then, just to really confuse everyone, it also transpires that the PN had all along been banging away on db's doors for financial contributions towards its CEO's salary. That last part may seem unrelated to the other two, but it's not. There's a reason why MPs in comparable situations to de Marco and Busuttil do not consider their twin roles to conf lict; and it's the same reason a political party like the PN has to rely on donations from large businesses like the db group. It's also why similar conf licts suddenly start appearing almost every where you look. The next example doesn't involve a 'politician' as such; but it certainly involves 'politics'. In the wake of the party financing revelations, the Electoral Commission (not without some prodding) decided to investigate whether the PN was in breach of the party financing law. It has already been pointed out that the Electoral Commission is not exactly well-placed to conduct this investigation: seeing as how half its members were appointed by the PN (which has an interest in the outcome) and the other half by Labour (which, oh look! also has an interest, fancy that...). But then you look at the commission itself, and the first thing you see is that one of the PN appointees is Dr Joe Zammit Maempel... the PN's own lawyer. Hmmm. Now if the previous example was confusing, this one's a bit like a triacontahedral Rubik's cube. How is that supposed to actually work? Let's say the Commission investigates the matter and (hypothetically) concludes that, yes, there was a breach... and therefore proceedings begin in court. What happens next? One of the investigators suddenly whips out his other hat, and starts defending his client against charges that were brought about as a result of his own investigation? Now: all the usual provisos apply here. I don't know Zammit Maempel from Adam, and by all accounts he seems to be a pretty good lawyer, etc. No reason to doubt his integrity that I can see. But still: how can anyone look at that scenario, and not see that something doesn't add up? In this case, the 'something' is very clearly political in nature. Strangely, we all accept a situation where political parties get to appoint their own investigators. This also means it is fairly straightforward to solve. Just stop bloody accepting it, that's all... The other scenarios are however more complex, and simple solutions won't work. Try as I might I cannot see any other way out, than to turn Parliament into a full-time profession – with attractive salaries/ perks, etc. – and preclude MPs from holding down any other professional commitments, of any kind whatsoever. GourmetToday every Saturday 16.05pm on TVM