The right to know and the duty to remember

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” Attributed to Spanish-American philosopher Jorge Santayana, these words signify not only the duty to remember, but more, the right to know. 

We remember that which we know. How can we remember that which we do not know: that which has been hidden from our view? 

Unfortunately, our society, most conveniently, is, at times, more interested in promoting the right to forget, or better still, the right to be forgotten! Forgetting and consequently ignoring the past always has disastrous consequences.

Transparency is a basic value in any democracy worthy of its name. Without transparency there is no possibility of having any form of accountability. Hiding information, ensuring that it is not accessible, is a common stratagem used by those who want to avoid accountability. Data protection is unfortunately continuously being used and abused in order to avoid accountability.

Data protection rights are unfortunately continuously being abused, as a result, at times, shielding criminal activity. Though well intentioned, the recent decision of the Data Protection Commissioner on the publication of online chats between Yorgen Fenech and Rosianne Cutajar is part of this (unintended) fallout of privacy rights. Though in fairness it has to be stated that it is the publication of the full chats which has irked the Data Protection Commissioner and not the information contained therein.

Reading through the Yorgen/Rosienne chats decision of the Data Protection Commissioner reveals the tightrope negotiated by the Commissioner to try and protect both privacy as well as the right to be informed. It is appreciated that it is always difficult to draw a line as to where privacy ends and public interest reigns.

But then having the full chats published instead of a synthesis, as indirectly suggested by the Commissioner, served the purpose of not quoting out of context. The full context of the chats is essential as this clearly shows the toxic development of a mix of the power of money, sex, and political power. Through what was published it is clear how money and expensive gifts was the price through which a young politician was purchased. This is definitely in the public interest to know.

The right to know is not the satisfaction of a curiosity thirst. In any democracy, the free flow of information is basic and essential. Withholding information or obstruction of access to it should only be an exceptional occurrence.

Unfortunately, rather than being exceptional, the withholding of information or access to it, is fast becoming a normality.

Our Courts are resorting too often to withholding the publication of sensitive information. The court case of the NGO Repubblika challenging the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute top Pilatus Bank officials will no longer be heard behind closed doors as the original decision has now been reversed. This was another instance where our right to know was being stifled by those same authorities entrusted to defend us! Fortunately, the doors are now open. We have the right to know whether it is correct to state that the Attorney General acted abusively in defending criminality instead of prosecuting it! Has the criminal world captured the state institutions? This is what is at stake in this case! We have the right to know.

The reluctance of government to adhere to Freedom of Information Tribunal decisions is another disturbing matter.  For example, the Shift online news portal has won 40 cases at the Information Tribunal and 18 cases in Court relative to information requested on consultancy contracts and payments made to Saviour Balzan and his companies. Millions of euros of public funds have been used. Government is however refusing to be accountable for this use of these public funds.

What is the purpose of this secrecy? Has the state purchased the collaboration of a section of the media? This is what is at stake here. We have the right to know.

The right to know is basic in any democracy. Transparency and accountability work in tandem. Without transparency, accountability is hampered. A lack of transparency is an essential first step in order to ensure that accountability is avoided altogether.

Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain. Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter: devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency is entrenched as an essential element of the operation of the state and public institutions.

Whenever government, public bodies or state institutions are secretive about information which they hold, and refuse or oppose without valid reason requests to release information they give ample proof of their governance credentials.

We deserve better than that.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 January 2024

Fir-Repubblika tal-Banana

Meta l-mexxej Laburista Robert Abela indirizza lill-partitarji fil-Każin Laburista ta’ Birkirkara, nhar il-Ħadd li għadda, kellu raġun jilmenta li s-sentenzi f’kawżi kriminali, bosta drabi jidhru baxxi jew laxki. Xi drabi qed jingħata l-messaġġ li qiesu ma ġara xejn. Il-Prim Ministru għandu bosta postijiet iktar addattati fejn jista’ jwassal il-preokkupazzjoni tiegħu dwar il-ħtieġa ta’ politika iktar addattata dwar is-sentenzi li qed jingħataw mill-Qrati.

Seta ġibed l-attenzjoni tal-President tar-Repubblika biex il-materja tkun ikkunsidrata fil-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja. Seta qajjem il-materja f’laqgħa formali mal-Prim Imħallef. Seta ukoll illeġisla biex inaqqas il-flessibilità li għandha l-Qorti meta tapplika l-pieni li hemm fil-liġi. Fil-fatt kellu għad-disposizzjoni tiegħu bosta għodda jew mezzi biex jasal għall-bidla mixtieqa. Imma li joqgħod ipeċlaq fil-każin laburista ta’ B’Kara bil-prietka ta’ nhar ta’ Ħadd mhux wieħed minnhom.

F’Birkirkara Robert Abela tkellem ukoll dwar il-kunflitt ta’ interess li Membri Parlamentari li jipprattikaw il-liġi kriminali huma esposti għalih. Matul in-nofstanhar ta’ filgħodu b’abbiltà, dawn l-avukati, jiddefendu lill-klijenti tagħhom u jippreżentaw sottomissjonijiet quddiem il-Qrati dwar pieni baxxi jew tnaqqis fil-pieni inkella dwar sentenzi sospiżi.  Imbagħad, waranofsinnhar, emfasizza Robert Abela, dawn l-istess Membri Parlamentari jiġu fil-Parliament jargumentaw b’qawwa fuq il-perikli ta’ żieda fil-kriminalità.

Dwar dan għandu raġun. Imma din il-linja ta’ ħsieb ma tapplikax biss għall-avukati li jipprattikaw il-liġi kriminali.  Tapplika ukoll għal avukati fiċ-ċivil u fil-liġi kummerċjali kif ukoll għal membri parlamentari fi professjonijiet oħra kif kellna l-opportunità li naraw bosta drabi tul is-snin! Din hi esperjenza li diġà għaddejna minnha matul is-snin.

Il-Membri Parlamentari għandhom jiddedikaw il-ħin kollu tagħhom għall-ħidma parlamentari. M’għandux ikun possibli li Membri Parlamentari jibqgħu jagħmlu kwalunkwe xogħol ieħor, kemm jekk dan ikun imħallas kif ukoll jekk le. Bħala partit dan aħna ilna ngħiduh is-snin, għax nemmnu li fil-prattika hu l-uniku mod kif tista’ tindirizza u tnaqqas b’mod effettiv il-kunflitt ta’ interess ovvju li jirriżulta illi Membru tal-Parlament hu espost għalih fis-sistema tagħna kif inhi illum.

Robert Abela qal iktar minn hekk. Irrefera għad-diskursata li kellu ma’ Maġistrat dwar is-sentenzi baxxi li ħerġin mill-Qrati Kriminali. Il-Maġistrat, qal Abela, iddefendiet ruħha billi emfasizzat li s-sentenzi mogħtija qed jitbaxxew mill-Qorti tal-Appell, li fid-dawl ta’ sentenzi oħra ġja mogħtija qed tnaqqas sentenzi li jkunu ngħataw mill-Maġistrati.

Robert Abela żbalja meta ikkomunika direttament mal-Maġistrat. Żbalja iktar meta tkellem dwar dan fil-pubbliku għax b’hekk bagħat messaġġ żbaljat u inkwetanti li l-Qrati qed jirċievu ordnijiet diretti mingħand l-eżekuttiv. Dan fi kliem sempliċi hu ta’ theddida għall-indipendenza tal-ġudikatura.  Bħala avukat, bla dubju, Robert Abela jirrealizza li qabeż il-linja ta’ dak li hu tollerabbli mill-politiku f’soċjetà demokratika.

F’pajjiż demokratiku fejn is-saltna tad-dritt hi realtà mhux ħrafa, Robert Abela kien jirreżenja fi ftit siegħat minn x’ħin pubblikament ammetta  li hu għamel pressjoni fuq il-Maġistrat. Il-Maġistrat li min-naħa tagħha kompliet miegħu fid-diskussjoni s’issa, kienet tkun ġiet identifikata u dixxiplinata.

Imma, kif tafu, minn dan kollu, ma ġara xejn.

Nhar it-Tnejn fi stqarrija għall-istampa, jiena tlabt lill-President tar-Repubblika biex isejjaħ laqgħa urġenti tal-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja biex din tkun tista’ tieħu l-passi neċessarja dwar dak li ġara.

S’issa għad ma ġara xejn. Forsi l-President kien imsiefer, inkella kien imħabbat b’xi attività dwar il-larinġ li nsibu fil-ġonna Presidenzjali ta’ Sant Anton.

Issa forsi jmiss iċ-ċelebrazzjoni tal-ġimgħa tal-banana fl-aġenda Presidenzjali. Bla dubju din tieħu prijorità fuq l-indipendenza tal-ġudikatura fir-Repubblika tal-Banana!

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 4 ta’ Frar 2023

In a Banana Republic

When Labour Leader Robert Abela addressed the party faithful at the Birkirkara Labour Party Club last Sunday, he was right to complain that the sentencing policy currently applied by the judiciary may at times appear as being too lenient. However, as Prime Minister he had other fora through which to convey his preoccupation and to emphasise the need of an up-to-date sentencing policy.

He could have drawn the attention of the President of the Republic in order that he may refer the matter for the consideration of the Commission for the Administration of Justice. He could have legitimately brought up the matter in a formal meeting with the Chief Justice. He could also legislate in order to restrict the current flexibility which the Courts have when applying the law. In fact, he has at his disposal various tools to bring about the change he spoke about: pontificating at the Birkirkara Labour Party Club through a Sunday political sermon is not one of these tools.

At Birkirkara Robert Abela also spoke on the conflict of interest which Members of Parliament who are practising criminal lawyers are continuously exposed to. They ably defend their clients during the morning in Court pleading in favour of minimal sentencing, including the application of suspended sentences. Then, in the afternoon, emphasised Robert Abela, in Parliament, these same Members of Parliament vociferously argue on the dangers of an increasing criminality.

He is definitely right on that. But this line of reasoning does not only apply to criminal lawyers. It is also applicable to MPs who are civil and commercial lawyers as well as to other professionals in their specific area of practice. We have been exposed to this over the years in a number of cases. Is it not about time that parliament is made up of full-timers? No Member of Parliament should carry out any other work (paid or unpaid) except that resulting from his/her parliamentary duties. My party has been emphasising this for a considerable number of years. We believe that it is the only way to effectively address the obvious conflict of interest which abounds in Parliament.

Robert Abela said more. He referred to a tete-a-tete with a sitting Magistrate with whom he discussed the lenient sentencing which the Criminal Law Courts are applying. The Magistrate, said Abela, defensively replied that it is all the fault of the appeals court as they consider themselves bound by precedent when they revise the decisions delivered by the inferior courts, ending up in lighter sentences.

Robert Abela was wrong when he conveyed his views directly to one of the Magistrates currently sitting in judgement at the inferior Courts. Bragging about it in public makes it even worse as it conveys the wrong message that the judiciary is at the beck and call of the Executive. This, in plain language, threatens the independence of the judiciary. As a lawyer, Robert Abela is undoubtedly aware that he has gone far beyond the red line.

In any other democratic country where rule of law is fact, not fiction, Robert Abela would have resigned within a couple of hours after having publicly admitting pressuring a sitting Magistrate. Similarly, the Magistrate who allowed the discussion to proceed would by now have been identified and disciplined.

But, as you are aware, nothing has happened yet.

On Monday in a press statement, I have called on the President of the Republic to convene an urgent meeting of the Commission for the Administration of Justice to take the necessary and required action. So far there has been no reaction whatsoever. Possibly his Excellency the President is currently abroad, or, maybe he is extremely busy with some activity promoting the citrous products of the presidential kitchen garden at the San Anton Presidential Palace!

As things stand banana week would definitely be a future activity in the Presidential agenda: this takes priority over the independence of the judiciary, in this Banana Republic!

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday: 5 February 2023

Nistennew stqarrija urġenti mill-Prim Ministru

Wara l-istqarrija fil-Qorti, iktar kmieni illum, minn Vince Muscat il-Koħħu, li hu u sħabu kellhom għajnuna, ta’ ex-Ministru kif ukoll ta’ Ministru li għadu fil-Kabinett sal-lum, nistenna li l-Prim Ministru jagħmel stqarrija u jieħu passi immedjati.

Fl-ebda pajjiż fid-dinja demokratika ma jingħadu dawn l-affarjiet u qiesu ma ġara xejn.

Pajjiżna jixraqlu ħafna aħjar minn hekk.