Opposition spokesman Jason Azzopardi this evening criticised the government over the amnesty given to prisoners and said its applicability was far too broad.

He raised various questions after Home Affairs Minister Emanuel Mallia gave details of the amnesty in a statement to parliament. He said the amnesty is being given to prisoners to mark the change of government following the general election.

The amnesty, of 100 days, will apply for sentenced prisoners, prisoners whose sentence is under appeal, and those awaiting judgement once a prison term is imposed.

The amnesty of 100 days applies once only for prisoners who are serving more than one sentence.

The amnesty does not apply to those convicted of crimes against children including child prostitution, paedophilia, abandonment of children under seven, cruelty, and human trafficking of children.

Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi queried the justification of the amnesty, saying no amnesty had been given following recent general elections, but the government seemed to be pushing back the clock.

Was the government conveying the right message to society, not least to the forces of law and order? Indeed, such an amnesty demotivated the police and the army.

The popular sentiment was that following the election, honest citizens got a transfer and criminals got a reward. 

In 1996, he said, the amnesty did not apply to people convicted of murder, drug trafficking, prostitution of under-age people and offences against the elderly, among others. Now they were included. Why?

The new amnesty excluded some crimes against minors, but it would still benefit people convicted of selling drugs to children or selling drugs near schools.

How many people would benefit from the amnesty and walk free in the coming weeks? Was it true that it would be some 140 and this was an excuse to reduce prison overcrowding? Couldn't this lead to an increase in crime?

How many persons convicted of attempted murder would benefit from the amnesty? How many of the beneficiaries were convicted of animal cruelty or of breaking the conditions of previous sentences? How many convicted of domestic violence would benefit? How many pimps would benefit and walk free?

Dr Azzopardi said he was in favour of all measures to rehabilitate prisoners, but one also needed to consider the victims of crime.  

He asked, amid interruptions, whether the Labour Party had made an electoral commitment with the prisoners' relatives prior to March 9.

Dr Azzopardi also referred to a comment he gave in January 2007 in favour of an amnesty to mark the appointment of the new Archbishop. At the time, he said, he was a backbencher and not in the government, and the appointment of a new Archbishop was something which did not happen frequently.

Over the years many requests for amnesties were given, such as to mark EU membership and the papal visits. But the requests were rejected. This amnesty, he said, sent the wrong message.

Labour MP Carmelo Abela quipped that the election of a Labour government was also something which did not happen frequently, especially with such a large margin.

He asked if those convicted of drug trafficking would benefit from the amnesty. He also asked if the amnesty was linked to prisoners' behaviour.

Mr Abela asked if the prisons were effective as a correctional facility and what action was being taken to resolve current problems.

MINISTER'S REPLIES

Dr Mallia noted that six years ago, the NGO Mid-Dlam Ghad Dawl had congratulated Dr Azzopardi for backing a call for 'all' prisoners to enjoy an amnesty to mark the appointment of the Archbishop. Truly, time changed people.

It was not true, he said, that this amnesty was the result of some sort of election promise. Those who even thought this were ridiculing themselves.

Society, he said, was celebrating the election of a new government and that was the reason for the amnesty.

Dr Mallia said that the PN governments gave five amnesties within a short period of time between September 1987 to mark the change of government and 1992.

Dr Azzopardi was changing tack to please some people, Dr Mallia said.

He said the government was committed to the rehabilitation of prisoners and this amnesty had been discussed with organisations involved in this sector. They all recommended the amnesty.

The government also consulted the police and the Office of the Attorney General, who also agreed.

Dr Mallia said the exclusions from the amnesty protected the most innocent of victims, the children.

He had been ethical in the way the amnesty was announced, first announcing it in parliament. This morning he had had a meeting with Dr Azzopardi, giving his the details and replying to his questions. He also formally informed the President before making the statement this evening.

Yesterday, Dr Mallia said, he had gone to the prisons to be present for celebrations marking the recognition of the world record they had a achieved in producing the biggest Christmas log. The date and time was not set by him but he was invited to attend. He had referred to the amnesty after it was revealed in parliament. There was nothing wrong in this. There was nothing wrong in them celebrating.

The prisons he said, were found in a disastrous state, with workers doing what they wished, security equipment not working and guard dogs ending up as the prisoners' pets.

This government found a remissions board and a parole board which did not function. There were no professional assessments of the prisoners. This was what needed to change in the prisons.

This government was reviewing all process, and would, for example, introduce new courses to aid in the prisoners' rehabilitation.

BENEFICIARIES

Dr Mallia said that of May 20 there were 614 prisoners at Corradino of whom 22 per cent were awaiting trial.

114 were serving more than one sentence and 12 were serving a life sentence.

Dr Mallia said 54 prisoners will be released immediately as a result of the amnesty, including 11 who are foreigners.

By the end of this month 12 more will benefit. By the end of July a further 21 would be freed, including six foreigners.

By the end of August 20 will walk free, of whom six are foreigners and 14 Maltese.

Five will walk free at the end of September, nine in October, 10 in November and 12 at the end of December. Foreigners who have no right to be in Malta would be served with a removal order.

Referring to drug cases, Dr Mallia said those convicted of drug convicted were usually sentenced to long prison sentences, say 18 years or 20 years, and an amnesty of 100 days would therefore not make much difference. 

He denied that the amnesty was in any linked to easing prison overcrowding.

The spirit of the amnesty, Dr Malllia said, was removed from the circumstances where a prime minister met a reportedly notorious person and granted him an amnesty in return for information on a crime which was then not proven.