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

Inkwetanti li Robert Abela jiltaqa’ ma’ Maġistrat

It-Times online u l-Independent online huma u jirrappurtaw id-diskors ta’ dalgħodu ta’ Robert Abela jirreferu għal laqgħa li Robert Abela qal li kellu ma’ Maġistrat.

L-Independent tgħid hekk: He said that he had the occasion to speak to a magistrate, who told him that the legal framework permits them to give low or high punishments. But, the magistrate said that when they give a high punishment, even though the law allows it, “they appeal and the chances are that the Court of Appeal would reduce the punishment as there are policies or past judgements that militate that punishments not be that high.”

It-Times tgħid hekk: He said that over the past few days he met a magistrate who told him that whenever a tough punishment was handed down, the sentence was inevitably watered down on appeal, with the appeals court citing caselaw.

Newsbook min-naħa l-oħra irrapporta hekk: Hu qal li din il-ġimgħa tkellem ma’ Maġistrat li stqarret miegħu li meta jingħataw pieni ħorox, il-Qorti tal-Appell tnaqqas din il-piena.

Dan il-kumment tal-Prim Ministru Robert Abela jeħtieġ spjegazzjoni immedjata għax hu inkwetanti ħafna. Minn meta l-hawn il-Prim Ministru jiltaqa’ ma’ Maġistrat u jitkellem dwar is-sentenzi? L-affarijiet mhumiex ċari u huma inkwetanti ħafna meta politiku jiltaqa’ ma’ membru tal-ġudikatura.

Min hu jew min hi l-Maġistrat ma nafx imma naħseb li l-Prim Imħallef għandu jara daqsxejn x’ġara.

Anke l-President tar-Repubblika li fost l-inkarigi tiegħu imexxi l-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja għandu l-obbligu li jindaga mingħajr dewmien.

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?

 

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

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

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 5^th 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!