The law should protect

Public attention has recently been focussed on the tragic, unexpected death of Nicholas Azzopardi in a state hospital.

As is the rule, a judicial inquiry was set up immediately, chaired by the inquiring magistrate on duty. Within a few days, a separate, so-called 'independent' inquiry chaired by a retired judge began at the request of the Prime Minister. No reason was explicitly given for having this concurrent, public inquiry, this time led by a more senior member of the judiciary than is provided by law, although it is generally recognised that the serious allegations made by the victim shortly before his death have cast a shadow on the conduct of some members of the Police Corps.

The Chamber of Advocates quite correctly took exception to the setting up of a concurrent, public judicial inquiry, arguing that it was anomalous and unjust. The habit of instituting multiple, concurrent public inquiries, judicial or otherwise to investigate serious incidents has crept in over the years. The law as it stands makes ample and adequate provision for a public inquiry in such cases, giving the inquiring magistrate power to appoint experts of his/her own choosing to help him/her and fixing a precise timeframe within which he is to conclude his task and pass on his report to the Attorney General. It is argued by some that multiple, concurrent public inquiries are necessary because they serve different purposes. On serious reflection, this argument is flawed. The prime and paramount inquiry is and should remain the magisterial inquiry, a public, judicial, impartial and well-regulated investigation.

Other inquiries may be desirable, like an internal departmental inquiry, but they are not or should not be public or necessarily chaired by a member of the judiciary. Nor should such investigations be invested with any superior authority or credibility. They are, after all, looking at incidents from inside the box, and conducted by people chosen by the department concerned which often is also liable to partial responsibility for the incident being investigated.

A magisterial inquiry is (in the words of a journalist) endowed by law to 'sort out the facts from the lies, the exaggerations, the half-truths and the figments of the imagination', in short to arrive at the truth of the matter, the whole truth. It is an institution of great public importance which should be nurtured, not devalued. Its findings are intended to be weighed by the highest legal officer of the land and finally tested in court. It is designed to examine not only any possible criminal responsibility but encompasses also administrative responsibility and personal conduct incompatible with public office.

A magisterial inquiry, like any other human endeavour, may be conducted well and serve its purpose, or less well , but its findings cannot be judged as unsatisfactory. It is the executive arm of the government.

It is the Attorney General or some such senior officer who decides whether it is in the public interest to proceed further, by investigation or committal, or any other step he may deem necessary. And it is also he who sees that the rules regulating the proper running of an inquiry are respected.

Internal inquiries, however independent they may be said to be, have no legal framework and cannot supplant the law.