That's not the point

Joe (Peppi) Azzopardi tells us (Justice And Vendetta, July 23) that when two soldiers were convicted of stealing mobile phones donated to the charity fundraiser L-Istrina, he did what he could to make sure they kept their jobs. He failed. He wonders what the difference could possibly be between his efforts and those of Jesmond Mugliett, on behalf of two driving instructors convicted of corruption and interdicted for life.

If nobody else has taken the trouble to do so already, I'll put him straight as to what that difference is.

Mr Mugliett is a government minister and an elected representative of the people. Mr Azzopardi is a television presenter. What a television presenter does is completely irrelevant, no concern of ours, and of little interest beyond gossip in passing. What a government minister does is wholly relevant and subject to the scrutiny and censure of the electorate. Mr Azzopardi's omnipresence on our screens may have gone to his head a little and so he may need reminding that nobody has elected him, and he is answerable to no one except his business partners, in private.

Mr Azzopardi misses the point.

Mr Mugliett should be wiped off the government's shoes not because he intervened to stop the prosecution. He did not do that. He should be removed to the back-benches because he thought - and still thinks - that it is perfectly acceptable for a government minister to "suggest" to the top dogs at a public authority that there be a stay of execution for corrupt persons, pending the outcome of a request for a presidential pardon. The recommendation for a presidential pardon would have had to go through the ministerial Cabinet, of which Mr Mugliett forms part, making this a particularly unattractive mise en scene.

This is quite apart from the question that hovers above the whole debacle. What on earth was a government minister doing, involving himself in the nitty-gritty of human resources - not even in his actual ministry, but in a public authority? Maybe this is how our government ministers like to spend their time. Perhaps this is the kind of thing that tops the priority list.

A presidential pardon is not something that should be routine. It is an extraordinary measure intended only for extraordinary circumstances, for example, to bring some measure of resolution to cases of miscarriage of justice that cannot otherwise be resolved, and similarly serious situations. It is not intended for the routine lifting of interdictions from public officials convicted of taking bribes so that they may keep their job with the transport authority instead of finding another one.

The presidential pardon system is being greatly abused, and the collusion of government ministers in this is greatly distressing. People do not "apply" for a presidential pardon. They have to be recommended for one - by the government.

Mr Azzopardi is full of admiration because many Labour MPs are writing to the Prime Minister, requesting his recommendation for a presidential pardon for clients of their law practice or their constituency surgery. He sees this as a manifestation of compassion. I see it as yet another manifestation of clientelism. I am thoroughly put off by the thought of our parliamentary representatives haggling at the presidential pardon bazaar.

Mr Azzopardi was wrong to try to save those soldiers when they were convicted of theft. Had he succeeded, we would have at least two convicted thieves wearing army uniforms, carrying weapons, and stopping us at road blocks. Being a soldier isn't a "job", as he puts it. It carries with it particularly heavy responsibilities, which is why soldiers are subjected to even greater strictures than civilians. A soldier who steals is not in the same position before the law as a shop clerk who steals. Even if they have stolen the same things, it is not the same crime. That is why armies have their own courts - courts martial - in which soldiers and officers are proceeded against. In Malta, soldiers who steal, deal in drugs, plot murder or connive in civilian violence are brought up before the ordinary courts, like the rest of us. Then people like Mr Azzopardi try to pull all the strings they can to get them to keep their jobs.

Two soldiers who blithely steal mobile phones of no great value from a charity fundraiser are like judges in the appeals court who take just-not-worth-the-risk sums of money for reducing the sentences of drug traffickers. There are two ways of looking at it. They have so little respect for their public role that they are prepared to risk it for relatively little. Or they have been doing it so often that they are inured to the risk. Either way, their position is untenable.

I don't think Mr Azzopardi is naïve; I think he has been brought up in the typical Maltese value system, and cannot shrug it off. This is the value system which describes the commission of a crime as zbalja - a mistake - and therefore less condemnable, because it could happen to any of us. Zbalja has replaced ghamel hazin in the vernacular. This probably indicates one of two things: A cultural shift in attitudes as to what is acceptable and what is not, or the adoption of the values of the lowest common denominator, in which cleverness is equated with cunning and stupidity with decency, as the values of the nation.

There is one final point which I must address.

Mr Azzopardi asks what the editors and journalists who are calling for Mr Mugliett's resignation would have done if one of the corrupt driving instructors were a member of their family. I cannot speak for the rest, but I would have let justice take its course, without any attempts at perverting it. I would have felt absolutely no urge to defend a family member who had done something so crass. I would have felt the opposite urge to cut him loose and disown him, though I might have come round eventually and visited him in prison.

My view would have been this. If he's capable of lifting fivers off 18-year-olds who are all agog with excitement at the thought of a driving licence, corrupting their relative innocence by doing so and knocking their respect for public authority, probably permanently, then he's quite capable of cheating me too. There are no "mistakes"; there are only personality traits.