Labour’s transparency deficit

Labour leader Joseph Muscat has inherited a transparency deficit which he has not yet done much to remedy.

Looking back to the dark days when a Labour government suspended the Constitutional Court and played musical chairs with judges and when Labour supporters burned down The Times and terrorised Eddie Fenech Adami’s family, a systematic lack of transparency was part and parcel of Labour’s ethos.

Who can recall one single case when a Labour supporter was arrested for any of the frequent acts of violence against people and property under the 1971-87 Labour administrations? Labour law-breakers were protected by prominent Labour politicians and by the police themselves. No prosecutions also meant a serious and dangerous lack of transparency.

Does anyone believe that Police Commissioner Lawrence Pullicino would have been brought to book for complicity in the murder of Nardu Debono at police headquarters, had Labour won the 1987 election? And one wonders what would have happened to Peter Paul Busuttil, who was framed for the murder of Raymond Caruana by Labour connivers with the active co-operation of the police, had there not been a change of government in 1987.

Now we all hope and pray that Malta will never again sink to such low levels of governance. But there are signs that Labour is still holding on to an equally worrying lack of transparency.

A few days ago someone told me a story as to why the former Labour mayor of Fgura was unceremoniously ditched by Joseph Muscat, with no explanation. I did not give much credence to the story but several stories seem to be doing the rounds and the poor man is either probably unaware of them or he has no choice but to ignore them. Labour chose the path of lack of transparency in this matter.

If Dr Muscat treats one of his own so unfairly, one wonders how he would deal with the likes of others who have no allegiance to Labour, if the electorate returns him to power.

I am a layman when it comes to law. But Labour’s attitude to the case involving three sacked police officers and a court judgment is very worrying. The Sunday Times (September 12) carried a bold story pointing out that “a copy of the transcripts of the tapped conversations, seen by this newspaper, show there was ongoing contact between certain officers and suspects”.

The facts revealed by the reporter should be frightening for the likes of you and me. Labour decided to reject the government’s position that the judgment in this case revolved on a technicality.

Do we assume that if Labour returns to power these same police officers will be reinstated even though a dark cloud still hangs over them? Where is the transparency that Dr Muscat demands of the government?

I believe Dr Fenech Adami’s insistence that he had no intention of apologising to the three dismissed police officers is the correct attitude, given the revelations by The Sunday Times.

I would like to see this case brought forward in Parliament by the government side as soon as possible. Labour should be made to show their hand. The time for ducking and diving is over. Labour is either for transparency at all times or only when it is convenient to its hidden agenda.