Il-jott tal-Imħallef Giovanni Grixti

Diġa ntqal ħafna fuq il-jott tal-Imħallef Giovanni Grixti.

L-aħbar ixxokkjat lil ħafna.

Għaliex l-imħallef ma qal xejn? Għaliex l-imħallef ma poġġiex il-karti fuq il-mejda u astjena? Hu biss jista’ jagħti tweġiba dwar dan.

Min-naħa l-oħra, l-aħbar għax ħarġet tard? Ma setgħetx tħabbret fl-awla, f’wiċċ l-imħallef, biex irid jew ma jridx ikollu jwieġeb u jirreaġixxi?

L-avukati ta’ Yorgen Fenech qalu li l-fatt li snin ilu, meta l-Imħallef Grixti kien għadu Magistrat xtara l-jott mingħand missier l-akkużat ma jfissirx li hemm raġuni għal rikuża jew astensjoni, għax din bħala raġuni ma tissemmiex fost il-lista ta’ raġunijiet li minħabba fihom ġudikant għandu jastjeni jew inkella jista’ jkun rikużat.

Il-każ quddiem l-Imħallef Grixti dwar il-pleġġ għal Yorgen Fenech kien wieħed ta’ sensittività kbira. Kien essenzjali li jkun assigurat li l-ġustizzja mhux biss qed issir iżda tidher li qed issir. Għal waqtiet twal dan ma kienx ċar. Għal waqtiet twal kien hemm dubju kbir dwar x’kien ser jiġri. Il-jott tal-imħallef nissel ħafna dubji.

Id-deċiżjoni issa ittieħdet u mad-daqqa t’għajn (għalina li m’aħniex avukati) tidher tajba. Imma tibqa’ t-togħma morra: kien hemm waqtiet kbar ta’ dubju. Dubju li ma jagħmilx ġid la lill-ġustizzja u l-anqas lill-Qrati.

Hemm ħtieġa li jkunu investigati ċ-ċirkustanzi kollha li wasslu għal dak li ġara. Biex mhux biss jiġu ndirizzati d-dubji tal-lum imma fuq kollox biex jonqsu d-dubji għada.

Dak li ġara f’dawn l-aħħar siegħat ma żiedx il-fiduċja tal-Maltin fil-Qrati. Il-każ ma jistax jieqaf hawn. Il-mistoqsijiet li jeħtieġu tweġiba huma bosta. Huma ukoll inkrepattivi għax ġaladarba l-Imħallef s’issa baqa’ sieket għandu ikun obbligat jitkellem, u jitkellem ċar. L-imħallef jaf x’għamel u bla dubju hu konxju li l-mod kif ġieb ruħu mhux aċċettabbli.

Il-Prim Imħallef għandu l-obbligu li jara li l-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja tistħarreg sew il-kaz u tieħu l-passi meħtieġa, mingħajr dewmien.

L-Imħallef Wenzu Mintoff: kwalifikat jew mhux?

Wenzu Mintoff gurament

 

Il-ħatra ta’ Wenzu Mintoff bħala Imħallef nisslet ħafna kritika.

Essenzjalment il-kritika kienet dwar żewġ affarijiet.

L-ewwel tip ta’ kritika kienet dwar il-fatt li Wenzu Mintoff kien attiv għal żmien twil fil-politika. Mhux biss, imma li għal dan l-aħħar kien ukoll attiv fil-ġurnaliżmu fejn uża ħafna l-pinna fi kritika politika.

Jiena naħseb li jiena ħafna iktar komdu ma min hu ċar fil-kritika tiegħu milli ma min ma jgħid xejn, imbagħad meta jiftaħ ħalqu tista’ tinduna li hu ferm agħar.

It-tieni kritika fil-konfront tal-ħatra ta’ Wenzu Mintoff hi dwar jekk għandux l-esperjenza meħtieġa. Hu fatt li biex avukat jinħatar Imħallef irid ikun ilu ta’ l-inqas tnax-il sena jipprattika ta’ avukat.  Il-Kostituzzjoni fl-artiklu 96 tgħid li l-Imħallef li jinħatar irid ikun ilu mhux inqas minn tnax-il sena jeżerċita l-professjoni ta’ avukat.

Hemm opinjonijiet differenti dwar din xi tfisser. Dawk li qed jikkritikaw il-ħatra qed jgħidu li l-professjoni ta’ avukat tiġi eżerċitata fil-Qrati u li għaldaqstant avukat li ma jipprattikax il-Qorti ma jissodisfax dan il-kriterju tal-artiklu 96 tal-Kostituzzjoni. Din kienet ukoll il-linja li ħadet il-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja meta ma qablitx mal-ħatra tal-Avukat Andre’ Camilleri bħala Imħallef xi snin ilu.

M’hemm xejn x’iżomm lil dawk li qed jikkritikaw il-ħatra ta’ Wenzu Mintoff u li jidrilhom li m’għandux biżżejjed prattika quddiem il-Qrati mill-jikkontestaw il-validita’ tal-ħatra tegħu. Jiena naħseb li flok id-dikjarazzjonijiet diversi li saru dwar bojkott tal-ewwel seduta jew ta’ avukati li mhux lesti li jindirizzawħ bħala Sur Imħallef jew min mhux lest li jkollu kawża quddiemu jkun ħafna aħjar li min jidhirlu li Wenzu Mintoff mhux kwalifikat jikkontesta l-validita’ tal-ħatra tiegħu.

Dan hu l-uniku mod serju kif isiru l-affarijiet.  Għax jekk  mhux kwalifikat il-ħatra tiegħu hi abbużiva, imma jekk hu kwalifikat hu fl-interess ta’ kulħadd, u l-iktar fl-interess tal-ġustizzja f’pajjiżna, li jkun hemm ftit iktar attenzjoni dwar dak li qed jingħad.

Ikun allura fil-fehma tiegħi għaqli li min jemmen li Wenzu Mintoff  mhux kwalifikat għall-ħatra ta’ Imħallef jikkontesta d-deċiżjoni tal-Gvern li jaħtru u dan billi jiftaħ kawża f’dan is-sens.

Nifhem li trid il-kuraġġ biex tagħmel dan. Kwalita li mhiex komuni ħafna. Imma għas-serjeta’ hi l-unika triq.

L-Imħallfin fl-aħbarijiet

Scales_of_justice

L-imħallfin fl-aħbarijiet. Għal raġunijiet żbaljati. Raġunijiet li immaterjalment dwar x’ser tkun il-konklużjoni finali dwarhom ikompli jitfa iktar dellijiet fuq l-integrita’ tal-ġudikatura.

Kulħadd hu bniedem u l-possibilta’ tal-iżball uman dejjem tibqa’, ikun hemm kemm ikun hemm kontrolli.

Imma forsi issa hu l-mument addattat li nistaqsu jekk il-mod li bih jinħatru l-imħallfin u l-maġistrati huwiex addattat. S’issa jaħtarhom il-Prim Ministru li jikkonsulta ruħu ma min iħoss il-ħtieġa.

Alternattiva Demokratika hi tal-fehma li wasal iż-żmien li l-ħatriet isiru wara li l-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja tgħarbel in-nomini tal-Gvern għall-Imħallfin u Maġistrati.

Il-Kummissjoni darba waħda biss kienet konsultata u dik id-darba kienet tat parir kontra l-ħatra li kienet ser issir. Minn dakinnhar lil hawn il-Kummissjoni qatt ma kienet ikkonsultata iktar.

Anke’ fil-ħatra tal-Imħallfin u l-Maġistrati hemm bżonn iktar trasparenza u serjeta’.

Malta’s reputation and the Olympics

Lino Farrugia Sacco 1

Last June The Times informed us that Justice Minister Chris Said had called on the Commission for the Administration of Justice to investigate Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco in view of reports carried in London’s Times on the Olympics ticketing scam.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco had stated that there was no wrong-doing at his end. In fact he had informed The Times that: “We would never go against the rules of the International Olympic Committee ( IOC). It’s not worth it.”

On the 22 June 2012 The Times had informed its readers that His Excellency President George Abela would abstain from presiding over the investigation requested by the Justice Minister as in the past he (Abela) had represented Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco as legal counsel. The investigation consequently was to be led by the Vice President  of the Commission, the Chief Justice Dr Silvio Camilleri.

No one knows anything else about the investigation requested by Justice Minister Chris Said.

Yesterday 7 December 2012 The Times reported the conclusions of the IOC five-month international investigation into Olympic ticket selling.

I have accessed the website of the International Olympics Committee which reported that on the 5th December 2012 the Executive Committee of the IOC considered and approved “the Ethics Commission proposed recommendations, which were based on a thorough analysis of the evidence provided by the Sunday Times and several hearings.”

The report of the Ethics Committee of the IOC makes interesting reading.

Paragraph 17 of the IOC Ethics Committee Report states the following :

“With regard to the NOC [National Olympic Committee] of Malta,

a) Mr Lino Farrugia, President of the Maltese NOC:

After taking cognisance of all the evidence and his observations, the Commission observes that, by agreeing to take part, with the NOC Secretary General, in a discussion concerning the ATR contract for the Games in Sochi, when it was apparent that his interlocutors seemed to be looking for ways to circumvent the official mechanism, Mr Farrugia allowed the journalists to prove their point.

b) Mr Joe Cassar, Secretary General of the Maltese NOC:

After taking cognisance of all the evidence and his observations, the Commission observes that, by agreeing to discuss the ATR contract for the Games in Sochi when his interlocutors were clearly looking for ways to circumvent the official mechanism and knowing that some of the tickets could be sold in the Middle East; and finally by explaining which means could be used to get around the mechanism, Mr Joe Cassar helped to prove the point being made by the journalists, namely that the sports world and those who work with it are prepared to violate the rules. As a result, Mr Joe Cassar helped the reputation of the Olympic Movement to be tarnished.”

The IOC Ethics Committee concluded by giving its opinion which was unanimously approved: either the local Olympic Committees take action against the named officals who have tarnished the reputation of the Olympic Movement, or else :

“The Commission is further of the view that, in the absence of appropriate action by the NOCs or the individuals concerned, the IOC Executive Board has the authority to take the appropriate administrative measures, particularly with regard to issuing accreditations for the various IOC organized events such as the Olympic Games, the Youth Olympic Games, Sessions and other IOC meetings.”

In view of the above it is clear that the matter is not just an internal matter for the Malta Olympic Committee. It may well involve non-participation of maltese sportsman and women in Olympic activities.

I have no hope that Parliament will act by impeaching Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco, even if that is what he deserves.

What will happen now is anybody’s guess. Will the sports organisations stand up to be counted?

The International Olympic Movement is worried because its reputation has been tarnished. Unfortunately it seems that no one is worried in Malta. No one seems to care that Malta’s reputation is being severely tarnished. It gets worse.

The silence of the authorities is deafening. It defines the ethical standards of public officials!