Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/936285
maltatoday SUNDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2018 Interview 14 By Raphael Vassallo Dr Bonnici, your portfolio has been in the news a lot in recent months: last November, a European Parliament delegation left Malta with 'more questions than answers' regarding the state of our rule of law; and earlier this month, the EP issued a damning report highlighting a number of apparent shortcomings within our system. How do you react to the implications of this report? I think that in Malta, the rule of law is functioning; it works, and it has actually improved with the many things we have done in the past five years. Of course, the re- port draws a different conclusion, and I have been critical of those conclusions, not because they sug- gested we improve this or that par- ticular thing – I am always open to ideas to keep improving; the moment we say 'there is nothing more to improve', is the moment we should leave office. We need to keep improving things. But that re- port reaches conclusions based on wrong facts, wrong assumptions... and they only spoke to one sec- tion of the people. That section, of course, has a right to its opinion – that's a sine qua non – but there are also other views which hadn't been heard before drawing the conclu- sions in that report... But you yourself were one of the people the MEPs spoke to. So they heard at least your views... Yes, but how can you discuss 'free speech' in Malta, for instance, without meeting the Institute of Maltese Journalists? They talked about workers' rights, and spoke only to UHM without speaking to other trade unions. I respect the opinion of everyone, but you have to hear both sides of the story... OK, but even if we accept that the delegation should have interviewed more people... the concerns raised in that report are still valid. One of the conclusions is that there was never any investigation into the Panama Papers scandal... even though Malta's money laundering laws make it clear that even the suspicion of money laundering should be investigated... Let me tackle this bit by bit. The report draws a number of wrong conclusions, and was based on one-sided facts, as I said before. The government will officially re- ply to that report [Note: the reply was published after this interview], because I believe we cannot leave those wrong assertions going by as if nothing happened. We have, as a government, to officially provide our side of the story for anyone who wants to know the truth... Well, I'm asking for your side of the story now... Yes, of course. Regarding the question of the investigation into Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri – I think that's the most impor- tant issue at stake – let's start one step at a time. The FIAU does its reports [...] and would then trans- mit its findings to the police. Those findings would contain informa- tion. Information is not evidence. Information is one thing, evidence is another... Do you mean that the information provided in the FIAU reports did not amount to evidence of wrongdoing on Mizzi and Schembri's part? Just a second: in Malta, and in all democracies, we have this safe- guard: we cannot try a person in court without hard evidence. Mere information is not enough. You need to transform that informa- tion into evidence: that's why in- vestigations take place... But that's the whole point; there wasn't an investigation in this case. How can we can be expect to uncover evidence when there isn't even an investigation? Just a moment, so we can clear this matter up. The government is not privy to details of what the po- lice do in individual investigations. But the police have issued state- ments to the press, saying that, from an investigation they under- took on the information they gath- ered, they did not see any reason to further the investigation against two people... Couldn't that be because the police were afraid or unwilling to investigate people in high office? If the 'two people' were not Mizzi and Schembri, would the police have acted the same? You are talking to a person who was arraigned in court over a traffic accident. So when the police find reason to arraign people in court, they arraign people in court... in- cluding the Justice Minister. I've passed through it myself... With all due respect, investigating the Justice Minister over something as relatively minor as a traffic accident, is not the same as investigating the Energy Minister over corruption allegations that could bring down the entire government... To me, it was not such a minor issue. Trust me. I mention this epi- sode – it's not a comfortable one for me to mention, but I mention it because I am living proof that the police do investigate when they need to investigate, and they do ar- raign when they need to arraign. Coming back to Mizzi and Schem- bri: you know that, in our system, we have a possibility – or a tool, if you prefer – where any person can go straight to a magistrate, and ask for a investigation to be under- taken, as long as certain conditions are met: basically, the gravity of the alleged crime, and other issues. In the case of Mizzi and Schembri, the allegations are being investi- gated by the inquiring magistrate. So the bottom line is, even though you might agree or disagree with anything that the police might have done, the system – because this is about the rule of law, right? – pro- vides for guarantees that, if a per- son wants to go straight to the in- quiring magistrate, he can do that. And that is what Dr Simon Busuttil did. But didn't he do that precisely because there was no police investi- gation to begin with? [....] Why are so you saying that there was no investigation? As I said before, the police said that, from their analysis of the reports, and they found that they did not merit other investigation, on the basis of the information they con- tained... They might have said that precisely because it was convenient for them not to investigate this particular case... because of who was involved... That's an allegation you are mak- ing. I have trust in the police. The majority of the Maltese also trust the police. Now: the police take de- cisions. You can agree or disagree with those decisions. In our system, if you disagree, you have remedies at your disposal. That is what I am arguing [...] The argument is whether the rule of law has col- lapsed in Malta, or not. That's the bottom line. The answer is no. [...] Our system is such that, even if you disagree with a police decision, you can go to an inquiring magistrate and ask for an investigation. How many other countries have this sys- tem? Isn't it a strong point for our rule of law? So how can you say that our justice system is failing, when we have all those guarantees? All the same, those guarantees have not translated into any investigation into the Panama Papers. Let's face it: in Iceland, the prime minister resigned over a far less direct connection to the same scandal. In Malta, nothing happened. Mizzi and Schembri are still there, it's still business as usual. So these 'guarantees' you mention may look good on paper ... but in practice, they seem very easy to by-pass or short-circuit. No, no. Let me put the record straight. It is not true that Kon- rad Mizzi didn't suffer any con- sequences. Konrad Mizzi was the deputy leader of the party, and he resigned from the deputy leader- ship... But that's an internal party decision. It has no bearing on his public office. He was a Cabinet minister, and still is a Cabinet minister... Are you telling me that there is no consequence, when someone was deputy leader of the party, and had to resign? As far as I can see, that is a consequence. To me, that is a political price that Konrad Mizzi paid [...] and secondly, Mizzi went in front of the electorate; and the electorate voted him in again. You cannot ignore that fact... So the court of public opinion exonerated him, therefore there is no need for any further investigation? No: you said that Mizzi lost his The argument is whether the rule of law has collapsed in Malta, or not. That's the bottom line. The answer is no I am not defending Konrad Mizzi: I am defending the rule of law, the justice system and Malta in general. Because what has been told in that report is incorrect. It's not true. The claim is that our system is not working, when our system works RULE OF LAW JUSTICE Malta's justice system in