Gulia insists pardon was conditional on witness telling the whole truth

Opposition home affairs spokesman Gavin Gulia said yesterday that Justice Minister Tonio Borg contradicted himself in comments he made on Tuesday on the pardon granted to Joseph Fenech (known as Zeppi l-Hafi). The minister had also been selective in the facts he quoted.

Speaking in an adjournment speech in parliament, Dr Gulia observed that pardons were rare in Malta but Mr Fenech had been awarded three - in relation to a drug trafficking case which involved Meinrad Calleja, the attempted murder of the prime minister's personal assistant, in which he was involved, and, strangely, a burglary which was not related to either of the other cases.

It needed to be stressed, Dr Gulia said, that the pardon was conditional on Mr Fenech telling the whole truth. As in the case of a contract, therefore, the pardon fell through if the conditions were not observed.

Dr Gulia said he was very surprised that Dr Borg had argued that a pardon, once given, could not be withdrawn. For the minister himself had later said that the pardon was conditional, and it was up to the Attorney General to decide if the conditions had been observed.

The minister had claimed that the pardon had been justified because there had been a conviction in two cases - including the drug trafficking case where Meinrad Calleja was jailed for 15 years.

What the minister had not said was that there were acquittals in three trials were Mr Fenech was the main witness - the Clarissa Cachia and Ian Farrugia trials and the Calleja trial which ended last Sunday. In each case, Mr Fenech was not believed by the jurors. Dr Borg could not argue that the acquittals had nothing to do with whether Mr Fenech was believed or not, once he was the main witness.

And it was contradictory to argue that the jury system worked well in the trials mentioned by the minister, but needed to be reviewed after the other trials did not end to the government's liking.

Dr Borg had argued that at the time when Mr Fenech was granted the pardons, in 1996, the police had no leads in the Cachia Caruana attempted murder case, and that his information led to the arrest of people about whose involvement the police had had no previous knowledge. Once there was no previous evidence, it meant that Mr Fenech was the evidence.

Dr Borg had said that a reason for the acquittals might have been that Mr Fenech's evidence was not corroborated. But once the government knew from the onset that there was no corroborating evidence, why did it grant the pardons to Mr Fenech?

The minister had argued that pardons could not be withdrawn because if that possibility existed, people would be scared of giving evidence. But in this case, once the pardon was conditional on Mr Fenech telling the truth, what did Mr Fenech have to fear? It was people who were given a pardon and did not tell the truth, which led to a conviction, who had reasons to worry.

Dr Gulia said the prime minister's first meeting with Zeppi L-Hafi in 1995 would ultimately be his downfall.