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

Ma min iktar qed jitkellmu l-maġistrati?

Wara id-diskors tal-bieraħ ta’ Robert Abela li fih infurmana illi kellu diskursata ma’ Maġistrat bil-fors li nistaqsu: imma ma min iktar qed jitkellmu l-Maġistrati? Jitkellmu fuq it-tul tas-sentenzi biss jew fuq affarijiet oħra ukoll? U l-imħallfin ma huma qed jitkellmu ma ħadd?

Huma mistoqsijiet li bil-fors nistaqsu. F’soċjetà demokratika għandna dritt għal tweġiba ċara.

Għax Robert Abela, b’dak li qal saħħaħ l-eżistenza ta’ dubji kbar fil-proċess ġudizzjarju kollu. Diġà hemm id-dubji kbar u bli qal ħoloq dubji ikbar milli diġà hawn.

Il-messaġġ tiegħu hu wieħed ċar li meta jrid jikser ir-regoli u qiesu ma ġara xejn.

Tinħtieġ tweġiba ċara: x’inhu jiġri?

Forsi l-President tar-Repubblika, jekk ma jkunx imsiefer, ikun jista’ jagħtina risposta!

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.

Some reflections on the Mafia State

Reading through the terms of reference for the Public Inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, it is amply clear to all as to what the inquiry should be aiming at.

The inquiry’s objective is to determine whether the machinery of government functioned as it should. Did it function in the public interest, or did it function in another manner, in the interest of the few, thereby creating a culture of impunity for the said few?

Some may justifiably argue that the machinery of government, in Malta, never functioned properly. It is further argued that the post 2013 administration made use of a defective machinery of government more efficiently than previous administrations, fine tuning and intensifying political controls in the process, as a result of which the stultification of the functions of the democratic state was accelerated.

The terms of reference agreed to in December 2019 speak of the development of a “de facto state of impunity” and seek to determine whether this could have been avoided through effective criminal law provisions, if such provisions exist.

Do we have a Mafia State? We would definitely have a Mafia State if the machinery of government is tied with organised crime to the extent that state officials become part of a criminal partnership or organisation.

The testimony heard so far in open session during the proceedings of the public inquiry reveals the reluctance of the authorities to investigate thereby paving the way for the development of a culture of impunity. Money-laundering investigations moved at snail’s pace until there was a change in leadership at the Economic Crimes Unit of the Malta Police Force. However, as yet we do not know what was revealed in the testimony behind closed doors. Matters could be considerably worse than what is known so far.

The revelations at the public inquiry must not be seen in isolation. They must be viewed in context of the testimony in the Magistrates Court relative to the criminal proceedings against those accused of carrying out the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, or of masterminding it.

We have learnt that the alleged master-mind has pleaded with the police that he was carrying out the instructions of the Chief of Staff at the Office of the Prime Minister, Keith Schembri, who categorically denied this. The definite truth is not known yet. So far, we are only sure that the assassination planners were too close to the political nerve centre: just like in a Mafia State. It is at the Office of the Prime Minister that the middleman was offered a government job, one which delivered pay for no work. Part payment for his endeavours as a middleman!

The Ministers testifying at the public inquiry were continuously seeking to pass the buck from the Cabinet to the kitchen cabinet. On the other hand, those forming part of this kitchen cabinet feigned ignorance of their role in circumventing the role of the real cabinet. This is the worrying state of play in which those having responsibility take a step backwards as a result of which their authority ends being wielded by those appointed in lieu of those elected. Collective responsibility has been thrown to the winds.

The latest revelations crown it all. Government’s thinly veiled threats in the past days to the members of the judiciary directing the public inquiry reveal a government in panic mode.

Robert Abela’s unease at this point in time is understandable. After all he was former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s legal advisor. How many skeletons in the cupboard is he aware of?

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 20 December 2020

Loyalty and integrity

“Without a fundamental commitment to the truth – especially in our public institutions and those who lead them – we are lost. As a legal principle, if people don’t tell the truth, our justice system cannot function and a society based on the rule of law begins to dissolve.”

This was written by James Comey in 2018 in his book A Higher Loyalty. Truth, Lies and Leadership.

Comey, was fired as FBI director by Donald Trump. At a bizarre dinner at the White House, Trump had demanded Comey’s personal loyalty, putting aside his duties as FBI Director. Trump pressured Comey to let go of Michael Flynn – his National Security Advisor for 22 days – then under investigation by the FBI. Comey reflects on Trump’s demands for personal loyalty and emphasises that there is a higher loyalty in all of our lives “………….. not to a person, not to a party not to a group. The higher loyalty is to lasting values, most important the truth.”

All this came to mind when reading through Ivan Martin’s encounter with Yorgen Fenech’s lawyer earlier this week. Unfortunately, some know the price of everything but they do not have an inkling on the value of anything.

When the chips are down, our true values emerge. If the real values have been carefully camouflaged, the impact when they emerge in such circumstances may be shocking. What has been carefully hidden from view, all of a sudden emerges in full public view.

Offering money to an investigative journalist to “remunerate him for his services” has switched on many red lights. The attempt at bribing the journalist is bad enough. It also raises the inevitable suspicions that bundles of €500 notes could also possibly be used to influence the judicial process. Only time will tell whether the possible becomes a probable.  Most of us would remember when, in 2002, the then Chief Justice together with another Judge, were bribed to reduce a prison sentence at appeal stage. The then accused who directed the bribery of the judiciary had insignificant wealth when compared to today’s accused.

We must be vigilant. It has happened and it can happen once more.

There is a common thread running through most of the bits of information forming the developing jigsaw puzzle linking all those mentioned in the Caruana Galizia assassination: money and loads of it. It is becoming clearer that Daphne Caruana Galizia’s investigation of the corrupt power station contracts is what led to her assassination. Tainted money was used to purchase access to influence and people that matter. The indications arising are too numerous to be ignored. This is nothing new, however, in the present scenario it is of the utmost significance.

Kudos to Ivan Martin who had the presence of mind not to accept a wad of €500 banknotes. His loyalty to his values as an investigative journalist was automatic. He did not pause to consider whether it was worth sticking his neck out. All of us should be proud of him.

Ivan’s integrity will be remembered for many years to come. His loyalty to his values will undoubtedly reinforce Maltese journalism in these testing times.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 8 November 2020

Mario de Marco u l-proposti ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika

    

Fil-Parlament nhar l-Erbgħa, Mario Demarco qal li forsi jkun għaqli li qabel ma jsiru ħatriet sensittivi (mill-Gvern) jkun hemm konsultazzjoni mal-Parlament.

Din hi proposta li Alternattiva Demokratika diġa għamlet fl-aħħar Manifest Elettorali tagħha meta ipproponiet li diversi ħatriet isiru bil-kunsens tal-Parlament.

Fil-fatt fil-manifest elettorali ta’ AD għall-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-2013, insibu tlett proposti f’dan is-sens.

Fil-Kapitlu 6 tal-Manifest li jitkellem dwar riformi kostituzzjonali u demokratiċi hemm il-proposta ġenerali li l-Bordijiet u l-Kummissjonijiet ta’ importanza nazzjonali għandhom jinħatru mill-President tar-Repubblika bħala l-Kap tal-Istat u dan mingħajr l-involviment dirett tal-Prim Ministru. Il-President għandu jikkonsulta mhux biss mal-politiċi imma ukoll mas-soċjetà ċivili qabel ma jagħmel/tagħmel il-ħatriet.

Fl-istess Kapitlu tal-Manifest Elettorali, Alternattiva Demokratika titkellem ukoll dwar il-ħatra tal-ġudikatura: “L-imħallfin u l-maġistrati m’għandhomx jibqgħu jinħatru mill-Gvern iżda mill-President tar-Repubblika u soġġetti għal konferma mill-Parlament. Dan jiżgura sistema ta’ checks and balances bejn is-setgħa eżekuttiva (eżerċitata f’dan il-każ mill-President tar-Repubblika) u l-leġiżlatura.”

L-iktar proposta dettaljat qegħda fil-Kapitlu ambjentali, l-Kapitlu 14, fejn dan jitkellem dwar il-ħatriet fil-MEPA u jgħid hekk :

“Il-ħidma tkun effettiva daqs kemm ikunu kompetenti u affidabbli dawk li jinħatru biex imexxu. Alternattiva Demokratika għaldaqstant tipproponi illi filwaqt li l-Gvern tal-ġurnata jibqa’ jżomm s-setgħa li jaħtar il-membri ta’ din l-Awtorità kkonsolidata, dan m’għandux jagħmlu sakemm il-Parlament permezz ta’ Kumitat Magħżul ma jagħtihx il-kunsens tiegħu għall-ħatriet proposti. Il-Parliament ikun jista’ jikkunsidra li jagħti l-kunsens tiegħu wara li l-Kumitat Magħżul tiegħu ikun organizza sessjoni pubblika (public hearing) li fiha jgħarbel lil kull persuna proposta. Kull persuna proposta għandha tkun eżaminata fil-pubbliku dwar l-esperjenza u l-kwalifiċi tagħha konnessi mal-ħatra proposta.

Fejn tidħol rappreżentanza mis-socjetà ċivili, in-nominazzjonijiet għandhom isiru direttament mill-korpi effetwati. Għandu jkun hemm inqas uffiċjali pubbliċi bħala membri tal-bord, u rappreżentanza ikbar tas-soċjetà ċivili fl-awtorità kkonsolidata.

B’hekk huwa ittamat li jiżdiedu n-nomini ta’ persuni kompetenti kif ukoll li jonqsu l-ħatriet ta’ persuni li l-iprem kwalifika tagħhom hi l-lealtà politika. B’hekk ukoll il-Parlament ikun qed jieħu lura mingħand il-Gvern rwol importanti biex jassigura li l-ħarsien tal-ambjent jittieħed b’iktar serjetà.

Dan jgħodd għaċ-Chairman u l-membri tal-Bord li jmexxu l-Awtorità kif ukoll l-uffiċjali ewlenija fit-tmexxija tal-Awtorità li jinkludu iċ-Chief Executive Officer, id-Diretturi kif ukoll il-membri tal-Kummissjonijiet jew Tribunali tal-Appell li jiddeċiedu dwar talba għal permessi kemm ta’ żvilupp kif ukoll dwar riżorsi u permessi ambjentali oħra.”

Mario de Marco tkellem ukoll dwar jekk Membru Parlamentari għandux ikun full-time jew le. Huwa ma jaqbilx għax jidhirlu li Membru Parlamentari li għadu jaħdem/jipprattika l-professjoni ikun iktar f’kuntatt man-nies.

Hawnhekk ma naqblux: għax il-kuntatt prinċipali tal-Membru Parlamentari part-time mhux man-nies in ġenerali jkun, iżda mal-klijenti tiegħu li jiddedikalhom il-ħin u l-enerġija tiegħu. Huwa importanti li l-Membru tal-Parlament jiddistakka ruħu mill-klijenti tiegħu, għax issa l-pajjiz kollu huwa l-klijent tiegħu. Il-pajjiz jeżiġi servizz full-time mill-Membru Parlamentari. Sfortunatament dan is-servizz mhux jieħdu.

 

 

 

L-impotenza tal-Parlament u l-Imħallef Lino Farrugia Sacco

Illum l-Imħallef Lino Farrugia Sacco jagħlaq snienu, 65 sena, u jirtira. Il-lum ukoll, billi l-Imħallef Lino Farrugia Sacco kien qed jiffaċċja mozzjoni Parlamentari biex jitneħħa minn Imħallef, din l-istess mozzjoni tispiċċa.

Il-kritika li l-Opposizzjoni qed tagħmel lill-Gvern hi li illum hu Jum Iswed għall-kontabilita u dan minħabba li l-Gvern ta’ Joseph Muscat qagħad jistenna li jiġu fi tmiemhom il-proċeduri legali li kien beda l-Inħallef Farrugia Sacco. Kien ovvju li dawn kien baqa’ ftit mhux ħażin biex jiġu fit-tmiem tagħhom.

L-Opposizzjoni għandha raġun tikkritika lill-Gvern għax kaxkar saqajh biex jaġixxi – għax kien ovvju li ma riedx jaġixxi. Imma bħas-soltu l-Opposizzjoni tgħid biss biċċa mill-istorja. Il-biċċa li jaqblilha.

Kien ikun aħjar kieku l-Opposizzjoni tipprova tispjega għaliex il-Gvern immexxi minn Lawrence Gonzi ħalla għall-aħħar minuta, fi tmiem l-2012, biex iressaq il-mozzjoni għat-tneħħija tal-Imħallef Lino Farrugia Sacco.

L-Imħallef Farrugia Sacco kien ilu s-snin jisfida l-Kodiċi tal-Etika tal-Imħallfin. Il-Gvern immexxi mill-PN, iżda, ma għamel xejn. Kieku l-Gvern immexxi mill-PN kien serju l-mozzjoni ressaqha snin qabel. Kieku ilna b’deċiżjoni.

Imma dan kieku l-Gvern tal-PN kien serju. Hu ovvju għal kulħadd li la Muscat ma jrid is-serjeta’ u l-anqas Gonzi ma riedha qablu ġhax anke Gonzi kaxkar saqajh.

Ma hemmx x’tagħżel bejniethom.

It-tnejn, kemm il-Partit Nazzjonalista  kif ukoll il-Partit Laburista huma responsabbli biex fil-konfront tal-akkużi li għandu l-Imħallef, il-Parlament hu impotenti.

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-Imħallef Wenzu Mintoff

Il-ħatra ta’ Wenzu Mintoff bħala Imħallef inevitabilment terġa’ tiftah il-polemika jekk min kien fil-politika għandux ikun ikkunsidrat għal ħatra fil-ġudikatura.

L-argument fil-fehma tiegħi m’għandux ikun l-impenn politiku, passat jew riċenti, imma jekk il-persuna nominat għandiex il-kompetenza biex taqdi d-doveri ta’ ġudikant.

Kellna diversi ġudikanti Maltin li ġew maħtura fuq il-bank tal-ġudikatura anke direttament mid-dinja politika.

Kellna l-każ tat-tieni Prim Ministru ta’ Malta. Francesco Buhagiar fis-sena 1924 kien ħatar lilu innifsu Imħallef u wara irriżenja minn Prim Ministru. Iċ-ċajta fis-snin għoxrin kienet li dan ħares fil-mera u lix-xbieha ta’ quddiemu qalila “minn għada, int Imħallef” ! Buhagiar kien mill-Unione Politica Maltese, wieħed miż-żewġ partiti li eventwalment ingħaqdu w iffurmaw il-Partit Nazzjonalista fl-1927.

Kien hemm ukoll il-każ ta’ Luigi Camilleri, ukoll fis-snin għoxrin. Kien elett fil-Parlament biex jirrappreżenta lil Għawdex f’isem il-Partit Demokratiku Nazzjonalista immexxi min-Nerik Mizzi. Sussegwentement inħatar Maġistrat ta’ eta żgħira, eventwalment Imħallef u fis-snin 50 temm il-karriera tiegħu bħala Prim Imħallef.

Waqt il-gwerra kien hemm il-każ ta’ George Borg mill-Partit Kostituzzjonali ta’ Gerald Strickland li fl-1941 inħatar Prim Imħallef meta l-Ingliżi warrbu lil Sir Arturo Mercieca minn Prim Imħallef.

Fis-snin 50 kien hemm żewġ Ministri tal-Edukazzjoni fil-Gvernijiet immexxija minn George Borg Olivier, Carmelo Schembri u Fortunato Mizzi li t-tnejn inħatru fil-ġudikatura. Schembri fis-snin 80 kien ukoll Prim Imħallef. It-tnejn kienu eletti f’isem il-PN fil-Parlament.

Fis-snin 50 kellna lil Ġuże’ Flores, wieħed mill-ahjar avukati fil-kriminal li qatt ipproduċa dan il-pajjiż.  Flores kien Speaker nominat mill-Partit Laburista fl-1955 meta nħatar Imħallef. Irtira fil-bidu tas-snin 70 bħala Viċi President tal-Qorti Kostituzzjonali.

Iktar riċenti kellna lill-Imħallef Joseph Filletti u lill-Imħallef Lino Agius, irtirati dan l-aħħar li t-tnejn kienu kandidati mal-Partit Laburista fl-elezzjoni tal-1971. Kellna ukoll lill-Imħallef Philip Sciberras li fis-sena 1977 kien Membru Parlamentari elett flok Ġuże’ Abela f’isem il-Partit Laburista, u lil Peppinu Cassar li kien Segretarju Parlamentari għad-Djar f’isem il-PN li nħatar Maġistrat fl-1998, jew lil Lorraine Schembri Orland li ikkontestat l-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-1987 mal-PN u inħatret Imħallef ricentement.

Il-lista hi twila u ma nafx jekk ħallejtx lil xi ħadd barra.

L-argument m’għandux ikun li persuna għax kienet involuta fil-politika tiskwalifika ruħha. Għandna nfittxu jekk il-persuna nominata għall-ġudikatura hiex kapaċi kif ukoll jekk hiex persuna ta’ integrita.

L-istorja għandha tieqaf hemm u dan għal kull ħatra li issir.

Inkun prużuntuż jekk ngħid iktar.

Ippubblikat ukoll fuq iNews : il-Ħamis 17 ta’ Lulju 2014