The allegation that the late President Emeritus Guido de Marco was implicated in the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana is indeed hitting the very pit of political infamy.
Prof. de Marco was, of course, one of the leading lawyers of his time. He firmly believed in the values of the rule of law and practised the maxim that to be free we must be the servants of the law.
As a luminary in criminal law, he never defended the criminal but always the right of the accused to be found guilty according to law and in the respect of the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise by due process of law.
Yet, it is now he who is being accused without even the most flimsy attempt to provide a shred of evidence in his regard. The vile allegation from the media close to the Labour Party renders the issue more serious, transcending the personal into the institutional level.
Prof. de Marco occupied high positions of the state, up to the very highest of head of state. To attack the memory of such a distinguished patriot and national figure is to besmirch the image of a nation and of all its citizens to whichever political party they belong.
Had Prof. de Marco been still with us he would have tackled the libellous statements as he had done successfully many times in his long and distinguished political career. Yet, today, tragically, he is not given the basic human right of reply.
The cruelty in his regard lies in that he was a true champion of the freedom of a responsible press. He defended editors whenever they faced criminal prosecution. He won the right of editors to be defended by a lawyer of their choice when Dom Mintoff’s regime banned MPs from appearing as defence lawyers in cases involving the state.
He defended a number of editors charged with disrespect to the court for having done their duty. His unique powers of persuasion brought the court to see sense and drop proceedings.
The shock and incredulity felt on reading Prof. de Marco’s unblemished memory has been smeared by partisan sectors of the media by far overcomes the sense of anger it brings with it, for the simple reason that the allegations are absurd.
A few years before his death, I had the occasion to discuss with him Malta’s efforts to join the EU. Prof. de Marco, of course, was himself a leading political protagonist in the difficult road to EU membership.
However, he was genuinely appreciative of those who played a determining diplomatic and administrative contribution to membership.
He highly valued their priceless contribution as the Foreign Minister who presented Malta’s application and guided our diplomacy in the negotiations to undo the harm caused after the Sant Administration of 1996-1998 had frozen it
It may surprise the Labour media that in our private conversation Prof. de Marco clearly mentioned Richard Cachia Caruana as one of three from the non-political class who made membership possible. His words were: “Fuq tlieta qagħad is-suċċess diplomatiku u amministrattiv,” (the diplomatic and administrative success was based on three).
There was clearly no hint of any rancour or animosity when, totally unprovoked, he singled out the name of Mr Cachia Caruana as one of those three.
He emphasised with me Mr Cachia Caruana’s huge influence over the administrative machine of the state and how he had made full use all of his notorious “forcefulness” to bring the civil service and the Administration to deliver within the difficult datelines, which the bureaucratic process for admission relentlessly required.
Prof. de Marco’s praise on Mr Cachia Caruana must not belie the differences the two had during the long years of militating together in the Nationalist Party, both during the long years in opposition and, subsequently, the longer period in government.
The differences, however, were not personal but in how each went about doing their respective jobs. Prof. de Marco openly mentioned them in his best-selling autobiography The Politics Of Persuasion.
He remonstrated with Mr Cachia Caruana for his single-minded drive to concentrate power within the administrative arm of the party and the government at the expense of a more “collegial” vision of Cabinet government.
We may discuss until kingdom come whose vision was the correct one, however, it clearly emerges that they pulled the same rope to restore the rule of law, majority rule, the full respect of human rights and a vibrant mixed economy, which had been all negated by Labour.
Their differences united them to pursue the common end more than ever. After all that is what “the politics of persuasion” is all about.
May this serve a lesson to so many modern politicians.