Speaker asks Police to investigate hacking allegations
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Michael Frendo, said this evening that he was requesting the Police Commissioner to investigate the allegations of hacking of e-mail correspondence made earlier this month by Opposition leader Joseph Muscat.
The e-mails involved correspondence between Dr Muscat and RTK journalist Sabrina Agius.
Dr Frendo said that such allegations were undoubtedly serious.
He said that in terms of the Privileges Ordinance and Standing Orders, whenever a breach of privilege complaint was raised, the Speaker had to first conduct a preliminary investigation before ruling whether or not a prima facie breach of privilege existed. Should a prima facie case be found to exist, the case would be referred to the Privileges Committee.
In this case, Dr Frendo said, the Chair did not have the tools to investigate criminal allegations such as those made by Dr Muscat. Therefore, in line with a similar case in the House of Commons involving the alleged hacking of mobile phone conversations, the Chair was asking the Commissioner of Police to investigate Dr Muscat's allegations and report to him so that he may take his prima facie decision.
Sabrina Agius last week also wrote to the Commissioner of Police asking him to investigate the 'theft' of e-mail correspondence.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
26 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Nov 1st 2011, 18:48
The Speaker's intruction to the Commissioner of Police is only positive proof that at this stage the Speaker does not even have prima facie evidence of any breach of privilege case.
Jo Borg
Oct 31st 2011, 20:40
Joseph Muscat did the right thing when he brought this serious incident to the attention of the Speaker of the House. This is not only a matter of theft, breach of privacy and acquisition of personal correspondence through illicit means (which is already serious enough). This is aggravated by the fact that the PN's media made use of these 'stolen' emails for its own political profit. This implies that there was at the very least, the tacit consent of the PN leadership for their media to publish the illicitly procured items. If I knowingly sell stolen goods, I am accessory to the crime. Same principal applies here. Whether the emails were obtained through electronic hacking, surveillance activity (carried out by the local Secret Service) or by other means, the fact remains that they were stolen. In this case, the PM as leader of the PN and all its branches (media included) has a lot to answer for, and the proper place to do this is in Parliament.
J.C. Borg
Oct 31st 2011, 20:30
THOSE WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT STANDING ORDERS (ie How Parliament Works) better study them before they write.
F Goodwin
Oct 31st 2011, 20:09
I totally don't understand this at all. Fair enough, he has some worries about his privacy, and there should be an investigation into his allegations, but WHY is he being allowed to completely avoid any questioning about the content of the emails?
Frans Aguis
Oct 31st 2011, 19:38
I don't get why people are making such a fuss because JM referred the case to the speaker instead of the police first.Sure the speaker would eventually have to refer it to the police and so.Did anyone think that JM didn't know the speaker would give it to the police?
I'm tired of hearing the argument that "Eh ax Joseph qed jigdeb, tant u ekk li ta lill-ispeaker il kas mux il pulizija"...I really do not get that line of thought and I have to say that it started from Gonzi himself.
Mr Joe Micallef
Oct 31st 2011, 20:13
Why am I not surprised!
J Busuttil
Oct 31st 2011, 18:38
Does this mean that Dr. Muscat has to give full access to all his e-mails for the police to investigate? Obviously also those of Sabrina.
Daniel Dimech
Nov 1st 2011, 06:40
hehehe qisek qed tghid li int qtajt subghajk b sikkina imma trid tinvestiga il kumpanija tas skieken x ghandu x jaqsam ... ikber
Saviour Aquilina
Oct 31st 2011, 18:25
So why Dr. Muscat did`t go by him self to the police?
Jeffrey Borg
Oct 31st 2011, 19:05
He needed an interlocutor.
Andrew Calleja
Oct 31st 2011, 19:11
He needed time to clear his inbox! :)
... and probably hers too !
mark borg
Oct 31st 2011, 20:14
And you stupid point is ??
Charles J. Buttigieg
Oct 31st 2011, 18:18
Doesn't this mean that Joseph Muscat acted the correct way when he refereed the matter to the Speaker?Doesn't this also mean that Dr.Gonzi was wrong to expect Dr.Muscat to refer the matter directly to the police?
Peter Bonnici
Oct 31st 2011, 18:28
To whom would you report any suspected criminal activity?
Joe Vella
Oct 31st 2011, 18:33
No Charles, Joseph Muscat didn't act the correct way. The speaker doesn't have the tools to investigate, nor the e-mails in question had to to do with any Government server being hacked. Those are the facts. The Speaker is doing Joseph Muscat dirty work, or should I say, the Speaker is doing Joseph Muscat dirty work.
J.C. Borg
Oct 31st 2011, 19:02
You are totally wrong.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Oct 31st 2011, 19:09
@ Joe Vella.
In terms of the Privileges Ordinance and Standing Orders, whenever a breach of privilege complaint was raised, the Speaker had to first conduct a preliminary investigation before ruling whether or not a prima facie breach of privilege existed. Should a prima facie case be found to exist, the case would be referred to the Privileges Committee.
In this case, The Speaker said the Chair did not have the tools to investigate criminal allegations such as those made by Dr Muscat. Therefore, in line with a similar case in the House of Commons involving the alleged hacking of mobile phone conversations, the Chair was asking the Commissioner of Police to investigate Dr Muscat's allegations and report to him so that he may take his prima facie decision
All that means that the Speaker himself is in doubt as to whether the case is criminal or a breach of parliamentary privileges.
Joe Vella
Oct 31st 2011, 20:05
Charles, JOseph Muscat knew damn well that there was no case of a prima facie case. Joseph Muscat was more concerned not with how the e-mails found them selves in the public domain but with the content in those e-mails Those e-mails speak volumes of Joseph Muscat true character.
mario gellel
Oct 31st 2011, 18:08
TIME ENOUGH TO CLEAN ALL EVIDENCE, OR NOT ?? NOW MY GUESS IS >> NO HACKING EVIDENCE FOUND.
J.C. Borg
Oct 31st 2011, 18:19
Mr Gellel - In that case it is Dr Muscat's fault, as he should have gone to the police in the first place.
Anyone who knows Parliament's Standing Orders (and Mr Speaker - Dr Michael Frendo - knows them by heart), knows that Mr Speaker does not have the tools to investigate such criminal allegations.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Oct 31st 2011, 18:33
The case comes under breach of privileges. The reason why it was referred to the police was explained by the speaker.
J.C. Borg
Oct 31st 2011, 19:01
Charles J. Buttigieg - It might fall under breach of privilages, but as Mr Speaker does not have the tools to investigate such cases he had to refer it to the CoP before giving his 'prima facie decision. Had Dr Muscat gone to the CoP himself he would have avoided much loss of precious time.
Saviour scerri
Oct 31st 2011, 20:15
My guess is that now the Police will have to see if what JM wrote was something illegal by telling SA to spy on what was going on at her place of work and possibely elsewhere and refer it to him to use during election time. In my opinion that is espionage and it is a crime. Remeber Watergate anyone?? What he wanted SA to perform is equal to hatching, i.e., get info in an illegal way
Seems that JM intends to follow Alfred Sant's footsteps and he is even ready to make a pact with the devil as long as it helps him win (God forbit) the next elections. Not a very nice overture...............!!!!!!!!!!!!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 31st 2011, 22:12
If it were a case of "breach of parliamntary privililege" the Speaker would have acted on his own behalf without needing to refer the case to the police.
But this is NOT a case of breach of privilege. It is a red herring intended to divert attention from the objectionable contents of the exchange of e-mails between a prime minister "in waiting" and a spy planted in an unsuspecting newsroom.
A Dimech
Oct 31st 2011, 18:08
They pass the buck between themselves so that any momentum would be lost and we all forget about. We will never understand what really went on, that is, how come private e-mails ended up in the PN newsroom.
Jeffrey Borg
Oct 31st 2011, 17:57
In this case, Dr Muscat said the Chair you meant Dr Frendo I suppose