Presidential pardons

In February 1993, the terrorist Ali Rezaq left Malta after serving seven out his 25 years of imprisonment. This came about because local administrations under both political parties were too liberal in granting general amnesties.

One result was a public outcry, and another was an open clash with the United States. Ever since then, the executive (read politicians aided by public officers) has been more circumspect in interfering in the judgments of the judiciary to the benefit of convicted criminals through the granting of amnesties.

But a new phenomenon is creeping in - the Presidential pardon. Let us face facts. The President has nothing to do with this pardon except to append his signature to a recommendation made by the executive. In the light of a precedent, an application for such a pardon has been considered as a valid justification for halting the application of a court judgment.

A quibbler might claim that the application of the court sentence had only been suspended - or should we say archived? To which one is justified to ask: "Who will decide for how long?"

Are presidential pardons to become as commonplace as general amnesties were before 1993?

How can a Whistleblower Act deter corruption among public officers in the face of a liberal granting of presidential pardons?

All this may be entirely legal, but it is a travesty of the concept of "law and order".