The sounds of the shots fired by minister Manuel Mallia’s driver are still echoing around the island. Our national psyche has an innate aversion to policemen thinking that they can shoot with impunity – more so under a Labour government – and the incident has evoked the spectres of yesteryear: we had thought these were dead and buried but, it seems, they were only hibernating!
Mallia realises this and has even declared that this is a baseless perception: in Parliament and in a public ‘consultation meeting’ on Wednesday he rebutted the criticism that the country was returning to the 1980s by emphasising that in those years, he had fought abuse and public violence and that now, as minister responsible for national security and the police, he would not accept a return to the situation prevailing then. I have no doubt that he is honest on this one, but perceptions resulting from collective memory are not that easy to erase.
The atmosphere in last Wednesday’s public meeting was surreal, to say the least, with Mallia’s labour supporters greeting, with downright applause, his recollection of his having fought against the police abuse of the 1980s. No wonder that sometimes I feel I am losing my daily personal battle to resist becoming a schizophrenic, like the rest of this country often seems to be!
Apart from this concern, it is obvious that those on the two sides of the argument about whether Mallia should have offered his resignation are looking at the scenario from two different perspectives. Mallia, a foremost criminal lawyer, has defended himself by saying he is not guilty of any wrongdoing. That is the perspective of a seasoned criminal lawyer, not the perspective of an experienced politician.
Speculation is rife about whether there was something more sinister in this strange episode rather than a daft accident that provoked an unnecessarily violent reaction. This is the sort of thing that continues to fire the public’s imagination and undermines its trust in the police force for which Mallia is politically responsible.
Last Wednesday, the PN’s In-Nazzjon reported that there are recordings of telephone conversations – in which a number of officials and the minister himself took part – before the decision was taken to issue the ill-fated press release that claimed that the shots were warning shots – a statement that was contradicted by the fact that the shots hit the other party’s car at least in two places. This does not prove that Mallia was aware of the facts and hence approved a cover-up, but puts him in an even more awkward situation.
It is obvious that, prima facie, there is no indication whatsoever of some illegality in Mallia’s behaviour with regard to this incident; but should one therefore conclude that the case against him is closed because he is innocent from a legal point of view?
That seems to be the conclusion the government is heading for.
Tuesday is the deadline for the report to be submitted to the Prime Minister by the three wise retired judges entrusted to investigate the actions or conduct of Mallia and/or other officials in connection with the incident in which his driver – a member of the police force – fired at a private car for reasons that, up to the time of writing, hardly make sense.
Speculation is rife about whether there was something more sinister in this strange episode rather than a daft accident that provoked an unnecessarily violent reaction
The very terms of reference of the investigation – published by the Department of Information on November 24 – and the fact that the inquiry is being carried out by three legal beagles, seem to confirm that this investigation is solely concerned with the possibility of perceived criminal liability and not with political responsibility. In other words, one can easily predict that, following its terms of reference, the investigation will be exonerating Mallia from any illicit culpability. This in turn, would lead the Prime Minister to ‘conclude’ that the Opposition’s call for the minister’s resignation is unjustified.
The Prime Minister’s invitation to the Leader of the Opposition to nominate one of the three wise men was given the short shrift by Simon Busuttil, who argued that such an investigation cannot enter into the merits of who is to assume the political responsibility in this case.
This is where the real nub of the issue is.
Are the actual events that happened and the subsequent official mistakes, irregularities and misleading statements tantamount to a gross failure and loss of public trust in that sphere of the state for which Mallia is politically responsible?
If they are, then Mallia’s political responsibility cannot be dismissed by the fact that he is not criminally liable for anything that happened when this sad story took place and as it unfolded into a public relations mess for the government.
Objectively, I think that the answer to the question is ‘yes’ but, of course, objectivity is a threatened species in Malta, and the two sides of the argument will answer this question in two different ways.
And so this episode will only serve to accelerate somewhat the gradual erosion of public trust in the current government – as happens with any government.
micfal@maltanet.net