Ranier Fsadni's contribution (July 19) on the risk involved in our zeal for justice has left me bewildered. His equating the recent public uproar against the way presidential pardons are being handled with a society that bays for blood, shocks me as it is completely out of character with the level-headed tone of Dr Fsadni's normal contributions.
Anyone who has followed dispassionately the contributions of politicians, and political party officials, to the ongoing debate knows that it is these persons who are hurling mutual accusations that the granting of presidential pardons is being abused. Since the advice to the President is in the hands of politicians, John Citizen has every reason to be disturbed. He is not baying for blood but for transparency in the administration of justice and the judicious application of the provisions in the Constitution.
The public is generally ignored in this process. While the trial that leads to a conviction is open to the public, the media has access to it, the accused is given all facilities to defend him/herself against the accusations of the prosecution, mitigating circumstances are openly debated, and all this in front of an independent judge who (the same as in the case of jurors) may be challenged. Appeals for presidential parsons, which may be made within days, if not hours, of a final judgement, are dealt with in total secrecy, unless there is a leak.
According to Dr Fsadni's article the process is neat and concerns only the prerogative of mercy. The appeal is dealt with by the minister responsible for justice, who after consulting the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police, makes his recommendation to the President. Unless the President is ready to risk a constitutional crisis, he has to accept the minister's recommendation.
May I ask how are the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police expected to give a different opinion from that which they defended publicly in court only a few days earlier? What new elements emerge in the request for the pardon which are not already available during court proceedings? In the only case which led to a minister's resignation connected with a presidential pardon, the minister claimed that he had been misled. By whom? The Attorney General? The Commissioner of Police? Or by some other unknown persons?
In the cases that have given rise to public debate the Prime Ministers seem to have been unaware of what their minister was doing, yet we learn from the recent parliamentary debate that the Prime Minister has a number of requests for a presidential pardons in front of him. Who is really involved in these pardons?
In the above I have deliberately made no reference to presidential pardons given, quite publicly, with the aim of obtaining evidence to establish the circumstances behind very serious crimes that could not be obtained otherwise.
On the day that my letter on presidential pardons appeared in the sister Sunday paper (July 15) a person phoned me to recount how pressure was put on him to commit a crime. When he refused and quoted as one of his reasons that he was not ready to risk going to prison, he was assured that he need not worry because a presidential pardon would be obtained for him. Is it so easy to obtain a presidential pardon?
Why is the public not reassured by being informed of the number of requests made for a presidential pardon under all administrations, how many were granted, refused, withdrawn, archived or are still under consideration, what were the crimes and the judgements involved in the cases where a pardon was granted, and what were the grounds which justified the pardon.