Adhering to international conventions

The government is always ready to emphasise the point that we are always prompt to rectify international conventions. The ultimate scope of such ratification, however, is undoubtedly the implementation into domestic law of what the said convention would decree. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and, at times, the government would resolve to cunningly omit certain aspects of a particular international convention for its own convenience.

A case in point relates to the Convention on Narcotic Drugs, adopted in New York on March 30, 1961, and as subsequently amended by the protocol adopted in Geneva on March 25, 1972 and the new convention as adopted in 1988. The new convention was duly rectified by the Maltese government in 1996. Subsequently, our drug laws were indeed amended, however, for political exigencies, an essential clause was duly omitted and this is causing severe prejudice.

Article 3, subsection 2 of the said convention provides the following: Subject to its constitutional principles, and the basic concept of its legal system, each party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs, for personal consumption.

Thus, we see that the said convention insists that the signatory state would need to have a legal framework regarding the cultivation of drugs for one’s personal use. However, when we examine our laws, we will see that, according to same, the cultivation of drugs, significantly cannabis, must always be interpreted as trafficking. This means that the judiciary is bound under all circumstances to hand down an effective prison term, which can never be less than six months.

This, I dare say, runs counter not only to the spirit but also to the word of the relative convention. Undoubtedly, the failure of the government to adopt the relative reform is frequently causing undue prejudice and injustice. There are many instances when it would result amply clear from the evidence that the cultivation of one or two plants would be intended solely for the personal consumption of the accused. It makes no sense to me and is downright illogical to have to deal with the person in question as though he were a drug pusher.

On account of this anomaly, many individuals have found themselves unduly imprisoned and, at times, even having their particular assets confiscated by the courts.

This is not humane justice and is a long way from reparative justice, which we politicians emphasise so much nowadays.

Until a few years ago, other similar anomalies existed. The importation of drugs, even in minute quantities, was treated in similar fashion. It seems the government only pushed forward the relative reforms in the aftermath of an international hue and cry after a Swiss citizen was condemned to six months in prison for having brought with him to Malta one single joint.

Similarly, our law was rigid to the extreme when it used to refuse the defence argument that the incident would not have been a case of trafficking but of mere sharing. We have experienced ludicrous cases where, for example, youths were incarcerated as pushers merely for having shared a particular joint at some social do. Happily, even this lacuna in our law has been duly rectified.

For reasons known only to our government and notwithstanding much lobbying emanating even from such agencies as Sedqa and Caritas, that cater for the reform of drug abusers, our minister has remained mute. No doubt, the necessity to prosecute and punish drug traffickers is undisputed. The authorities have both a moral and legal obligation to curtail narcotics abuse in this country. On the other hand, however, in a civilised and modern state such as ours, there is no place for witch-hunts, intended merely for purposes of appeasement.

The law as it stands definitely runs counter to international conventions, which we have bound ourselves to adhere to. This is no longer acceptable. In the light of all this, I take the liberty to entice the minister to promulgate the relative amendments, as fast as possible because, in the meantime, we are perpetuating injustices.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.