It would be naive to think that politicians do not, or at least try to, interfere in or influence the work of the police. Whether they succeed and to what extent depends very much on how brazen a politician is and on a police commissioner’s determination to put his foot down.

There have been a number of examples, which, unfortunately, only served to further erode the respect and confidence the people should have in politicians and the police.

Regretfully, we do not seem to have learned much as the latest case of the tampered electricity smart meters proves.

The government decided to offer an ‘amnesty’ to individuals who bribed public officers to rig their electricity meters.

That is corruption and both the bribed and their accomplices, including those who paid them, should be prosecuted, as the law demands. Yet, the government, through the Attorney General, has invoked a provision in the Permanent Commission Against Corruption Act, to pardon consumers who come forward and speak up.

Still, the police remain bound by law to investigate and, if enough evidence exists, decide to prosecute and this notwithstanding the statements made by the government, including the Prime Minister himself and, now, the Attorney General’s decision.

Police Inspector Daniel Zammit admitted in court last week the police had not yet spoken to consumers who made use of tampered meters because of a political decision and because an amnesty could be given to such people. The police, he added, deemed it prudent not to speak to them until a decision was taken.

Ironically enough, just days after that statement was made five consumers testified in court about the circumstances which led them to pay money so their smart meters could be rigged. The Criminal Code states it is the duty of the police “...to prevent and to detect and investigate offences, to collect evidence, whether against or in favour of the person suspected of having committed that offence, and to bring the offenders, whether principals or accomplices, before the judicial authorities”.

Two Enemalta technicians are facing charges of tampering with the meters.

The evidence of those who actually bribed them or had first hand information about the matter is of the essence if the police are to prove their case in court beyond reasonable doubt.

So the police would have had a tough time securing a positive prosecution without the alleged accomplices’ evidence.

A way out seems to have been found by offering them a pardon by the Attorney General. That may be legally adequate and convenient but it certainly does not absolve the government of its political responsibility in fighting corruption tooth and nail, as it itself declares.

From a legal viewpoint, the police may still be facing a hurdle. The Criminal Code states: “If, in cases where the exercise of the criminal action is vested in the executive police, the executive police shall, upon any information, report or complaint in regard to the commission of a crime, refuse to institute proceedings, it shall be lawful for the person who laid the information, or made the report or complaint, to make an application to the Court of Magistrates for an order to the police to institute proceedings.”

Thus, the police should immediately declare that they would have prosecuted so many consumers for bribery were it not for a pardon granted to them by the Attorney General. That would put people’s minds at rest that the police would not have politicians interfering in their work.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.