I was hoping for a hullabaloo-free summer. It does not appear to be so as the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to want a break. Instead, he is attempting to create a new storm.

In my last article (Signs Of A Power-Hungry Party, July 26), I criticised Joseph Muscat and the Labour Party for their rash reasoning in accepting defecting Nationalist Party supporters as electoral candidates and to sit in their party’s upper structure. I was particularly referring to Cyrus Engerer. Less than 24 hours after the publication of my article, the news that Mr Engerer was being investigated by the police broke out. Suddenly, the leader of the Opposition’s new asset became a liability. I should state here that Dr Muscat declared that Mr Engerer did not inform him during their meeting that he (Engerer) was being investigated by the police. I believe Dr Muscat on this point.

Still, the PL leader made a hasty decision when pompously recruiting Mr Engerer without due vigilance. Now Dr Muscat drove himself to a point of no return on this issue. He is not the kind of person to admit wrong judgement. He has now committed himself to defend a case and a person he barely knows. That is what one expects when one recruits rashly. That is what happens when recruiting becomes only a vote-catching exercise.

So what does one do when finding oneself in such an awkward situation? How should Dr Muscat remedy his ill-judgement?

The easiest way forward for the PL leader is to say: “Sorry, I was wrong and my decision to recruit Mr Engerer and promote him to the upper structure of the party was a mistake”. Well, we all know how Dr Muscat behaves in such circumstances. Instead of taking the logical way forward and put a lid on the issue, like a loose cannon he started shooting everyone and everything that came in his path without due consideration. In his line of fire were the judiciary, the police and the Prime Minister’s personal assistant.

Let’s look again at the sequence of events of Mr Engerer’s case.

The police were investigating Mr Engerer when he was still an active member of the PN. He asked the police to expedite his case when he was still in the PN. He failed to inform the PN’s officials and then defected to Labour. At the same time, his father was also being investigated by the police on a separate case. When the police progressed with the senior Engerer case, the junior Engerer approached Edgar Galea Curmi, the Prime Minister’s personal assistant, and communicated a serious allegation that his father’s arrest was politically motivated. Furthermore, Mr Engerer claimed that his lawyers warned him (Engerer) that now that he defected to Labour he should expect this kind of treatment.

In our recent history, particularly in the 1980s, the police force’s independence was interfered with and this has conditioned many a Nationalist to strongly uphold the independence of the police. Post-1987, through Nationalist administrations, we progressed from the dark days of political interference. Mr Galea Curmi’s immediate reaction to pick up the phone to ask the Police Commissioner to meet Mr Engerer’s lawyers and listen to their (the lawyers) accusations was correct and symptomatic of the PN’s unequivocal belief that the police force is to undertake its work without any political interference. Could somebody tell me what Mr Galea Curmi’s wrongdoing is in all this? If anything, Mr Galea Curmi would have done wrong had he dismissed such accusations. Rather than condemned, he should be praised for having treated the accusation with the seriousness it deserves.

At the same time, the PN asked the Police Commissioner to give an account of the sequence of events. The Police Commissioner held a press conference and gave all the details that same afternoon. He went a step further and asked for an inquiry to be held. The government appointed a judge to conduct the inquiry. This is how the story unfolded. The matter should have stopped there but it did not.

On learning of Mr Engerer’s involvement, Dr Muscat became uncomfortable after all the pomp by which he paraded Mr Engerer a few days earlier. Instead of admitting his haste in recruiting Mr Engerer, Dr Muscat attacked indiscriminately the inquiring judge, the police force and Mr Galea Curmi. He had clearly jumped the gun.

It is very easy to undermine the credibility of institutions and of individuals in such institutions but to do so without any proof of wrongdoing is damaging to society. The people in our institutions ought to be allowed to work with the peace of mind that they won’t be attacked by the Leader of the Opposition when there are no grounds to do so. Dr Muscat’s reaction is the real issue in this affair.

Dr Muscat is taking the wrong attitude by attacking institutions whenever he finds himself in an awkward position. This behaviour is inappropriate for a party leader who is aspiring to become Malta’s next Prime Minister.