Editorial

A month ago the government said that two inquiries, one dealing with the prisons and the other with the army, were concluded.

The independent prison inquiry followed allegations including that a convicted drug trafficker had a say on the granting of prison leave and that this person was given preferential treatment at Corradino Correctional Facility.

The probe into young Gunner Matthew Psaila's death during a training exercise consisted of a magisterial inquiry.

The two cases have nothing in common except that the findings of both still remain under wraps. The Times strongly feels that the full report of both inquiries should be published immediately not only out of sheer respect to those who could have been victimised or worse, as in the case of the soldier's death, and their loved ones but also for the sake of transparency and accountability. Otherwise, one would be justified to harbour conspiracy theories and fear that it is a waiting game, giving time for wounds to heal and, perhaps, for potential culprits to cover their track and rectify mistakes/shortcomings.

It is already an affront to law-abiding citizens in general and the injured parties in particular that such high-profile cases are treated this way. Choosing to release just selective parts, as happened in the prison report, is arrogance at its very best.

Yet, it has been more or less the practice for this to happen. Serious incidents or allegations come to light, an inquiry is launched and a veil of silence falls on the case. Findings then reach the public months, or years, later, if ever.

Take the case of the death of Nicholas Azzopardi who alleged, before he died in hospital, that he had been brutally beaten and then thrown off the bastions outside the police headquarters while still in custody. Two inquiries into that case absolved the police of the damning allegations but doubts were left hanging unnecessarily for months on end to the detriment of the force, the officers directly involved, Mr Azzopardi's family and the public.

The word unnecessarily is key here because, as it turned out, there was solid proof, by way of video-taped evidence and various testimonies, which could have shed considerable light on the case at the outset.

Just as damning to the police force is the still open case of a man who was shot dead by officers when he allegedly approached them brandishing a knife in Qormi in May 2007.

People in this country may still revere authority as a matter of culture. But scratch below the surface and you are likely to find a palpable and insipid cynicism about the rigour with which allegations of wrongdoing against the authorities are dealt with.

A serious inquiry is not only held to uncover facts and apportion blame but also to allow for wrongs to be righted and, even if indirectly, to clear those who have no responsibility to shoulder. That is why the record must be set straight in public. That can only be done by releasing the findings in their full format and in an unadulterated manner.

When the Prime Minister decided to move a Freedom of Information Act last year, and which has still to be enacted, he was not simply pushing forward a Bill but was marking a further, natural evolution of the country's system of accountability.

That spirit must also be present in the way the government deals with public inquiries. Publishing the reports is a good place to start.