Justice Minister defends former Police Commissioner’s actions

The Home Affairs Minister has defended former Police Commissioner George Grech’s actions in the case of the dismissal of three policemen nine years ago, which was overturned by the appeals court two weeks ago.

It remains a mystery why no criminal action was ever taken against the policemen – Michael Buttigieg, David Gatt and Ivan Portelli – despite being dismissed from the force almost a decade ago over their alleged involvement in criminal activity.

“The ministry understands and supports the decision taken by then Police Commissioner George Grech, which he deemed to be the best in the public interest in the circumstances which prevailed at the time,” Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici told The Times.

He was replying to a question on whether there would be an inquiry into why Mr Grech never charged the suspended policemen even though he felt there were grounds to suspend them from the corps.

The three had challenged their removal and, two weeks ago, the appeals court confirmed a previous judgment. It decreed that their dismissal was null and void because they had not been informed about the ongoing procedures against them by the Public Service Commission.

Police Commissioner John Rizzo, who at the time was assistant commissioner, was the investigating officer who asked the policemen to resign from the force and took charge of the case against them in front of the PSC when they refused to do so.

Following the court’s decision Mr Rizzo has refused to comment on the case. Questions sent by The Times asking why no criminal charges were ever filed against the three policemen remained unanswered, even though when testifying in 2005 he had spoken of “very, very reliable information” that one of the policemen phoned a known criminal to inform him of investigations into a particular case.

The whole affair is further compounded by the fact that transcripts of tapped telephone conversations showing the familiarity between certain policemen and criminals had been removed from court records after a warrant was not exhibited.

Testifying in court, Mr Rizzo had said the phone calls were recorded when the police were investigating a hold-up – the €2.33 million (Lm1 million) heist on the Group 4 security company in 2000.

Excerpts of the transcripts of the tapped conversations published by The Sunday Times showed there was ongoing contact between certain officers and suspects.

When the heist had taken place in 2000 there had been a big police raid followed by a car chase. In the conversation, the suspect speaks about “some 14 cars”, while the officer replies, “hadn’t I told you before”.

Investigators inadvertently stumbled upon the officers’ involvement while tapping the telephone conversations of hold-up suspects.

Tapping can only be performed by the Security Service after a warrant is issued by the Home Affairs Minister or the Prime Minister for an identifiable person or telephone number.

According to the law, when asking for a warrant, the Security Service head has to provide reasons for the application and a warrant can only be used for the intended purpose. However, the law also stipulates that the minister may amend the warrant if asked to do so by the head of the Security Service.

When the policemen were dismissed, Mr Grech was also heading the Security Service, a role that was subsequently hived off to a different person when Mr Grech resigned from the force that same year after being involved in a sex scandal.

It appears that the transcripts originally presented by Mr Rizzo, in the case instituted by the three policemen, may have been covered by a warrant but they could not have been used against the dismissed policemen because the conversations involving them were only stumbled upon accidently. Mr Rizzo had admitted in court that he had never given any orders for the telephone conversations of a particular policeman to be tapped.

The question why Mr Rizzo had never asked for the original warrant to be amended or have a new one issued to be able to tap the conversations of the three policemen, remains unanswered, by him and by Dr Mifsud Bonnici.

The transcripts were rejected because no warrant was presented in court, even though the defendants (the Police Commissioner and the Prime Minister) had tried to use them as evidence against the policemen.

Mr Buttigieg and former inspectors David Gatt and Ivan Portelli are now considering suing for damages. They have called for the resignation of Police Commissioner John Rizzo and asked for an apology from former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami.

Dr Fenech Adami has refused to apologise and stood by his actions to suspend the three officers, insisting he acted in terms of the office he held at the time.

Although winning the right to return, the three former policemen have said they do not want to go back to a force headed by Mr Rizzo who testified against them before the PSC.

After nine years the three policemen may feel justice was served when the court ordered their reinstatement but the whole affair remains riddled with unanswered questions and lingering doubts.