The Attorney General was consistent in his advice on the John Dalli case, according to the police chief Peter Paul Zammit, who yesterday defended his decision not to proceed with criminal charges against the ousted European Commissioner.
“There was no inconsistency in the advice given by the Attorney General simply because the AG does not tell you what to do. He does not give you a final direction because that is ultimately the responsibility of the Police Commissioner,” Mr Zammit told The Sunday Times of Malta.
He was reacting to the latest controversy in the John Dalli case, sparked by Mr Zammit’s predecessor, John Rizzo, who said he planned to arraign Mr Dalli in December in connection with a tobacco bribery scandal that caused the former European Commissioner’s resignation.
Mr Rizzo said he had the AG’s backing. But after the election in March, he was replaced and Mr Zammit changed course, declaring in June there was not enough evidence against the former Health Commissioner to prove a case in court.
Asked yesterday whether the AG had given the two men different advice, Mr Zammit insisted this was not the case. “The AG will evaluate the evidence and give you a legal evaluation of the strength of your evidence.”
But he defended his interpretation of the AG’s advice and the decision to change direction.
Mr Zammit said shortly after he took office, he had asked for an arrest warrant and interrogated Mr Dalli with Inspector Angelo Gafá and only took a decision on the way ahead after this interview.
He admitted that he and Inspector Gafá disagreed how to proceed but denied flatly that the inspector was later transferred to the Security Service as a result of this divergence.
What if something went wrong in court?
Mr Rizzo also argued in court that the evaluation of evidence was a subjective process. However, in a searing reaction, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said on Friday that Mr Zammit should have stayed the course given the sensitivity of the case and let the courts decide.
But the Police Commissioner dismissed this criticism.
“What if something went wrong in court? Would I have to assume responsibility for it? The reality is that John Rizzo had the opportunity to charge Mr Dalli but did not. He could have filed charges in absentia (while the former European Commissioner was abroad, apparently receiving medical treatment) or he could have issued a European Arrest Warrant,” he said.
Mr Dalli at the time had furnished police with medical certificates that said he could not travel or face “psycho-social exposure”.
Moreover, investigators at the time were wary about being seen to be treating Mr Dalli too aggressively because of the medical certificates.
Mr Dalli weighed in on the debate yesterday, pointing out in a statement he had not returned to Malta on the same day that the Police Commissioner was replaced, as Dr Busuttil claimed.
“I returned on April 6, when Rizzo was still commissioner, and had every opportunity to take the steps he felt he had to take... I did not come in stealth,” Mr Dalli said.
Mr Rizzo was replaced on April 10.
Contacted yesterday, Mr Rizzo declined to comment, saying that what he had to say he said in court where he was summoned to testify.
Mr Dalli also questioned a line in Mr Rizzo’s testimony in which he said there had been a lot of media and parliamentary pressure in connection with the investigation.
“As far as I know, Parliament never discussed this case. Also Parliament did not meet between December 15 and April 6. How was Parliament exerting pressure on Rizzo?” Mr Dalli asked.
The case had scarcely been mentioned in Parliament but it had been brought up by Foreign Minister George Vella during an adjournment which concerned primarily the hearing of Mr Dalli’s EU successor, Tonio Borg.
At the time, the probe was in full swing.