Opposition leader Simon Busuttil this evening accused the prime minister of a policy of blackmail and bullying after a speech earlier where he said he would test the Opposition leader every month. See http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20141210/local/carm-mifsud-bonnici-reacts-as-pm-says-former-minister-stopped-action-against-officers-involved-in-migrants-death-demands-action-from-busuttil.547697

Speaking in Parliament, Dr Busuttil said the prime minister had been angry and aggressive because the Opposition had managed to bring out the truth of what happened after a minister’s driver fired twice in Gzira on November 19.

The Opposition’s purpose, Dr Busuttil said, was to ensure that this country was a normal country where everyone did his duty.

The government through its actions since November 19 had ridiculed itself. So had the prime minister.

What took place on November 19 was a consequence of the culture instilled after the election that anyone who felt part of the government could do whatever he liked.

This was a prime minister who had hugged Cyrus Engerer after he was convicted by a criminal court. A court had found Labour MP Luciano Busuttil to have a conflict of interest, and nothing happened. Minister Helena Dalli had allowed works to be carried out a property in breach of an enforcement order, and the prime minister did nothing.

What message did all this convey? The message was that everyone could do whatever he liked.

Were it not for the Opposition’s actions, what happened on November 19 would have been allowed to pass. The government, had said, after all, that this was a hit and run incident where warning shots were fired in the air.

The way Dr Mallia was handled by the prime minister was very different from the ‘political murder’ of his former party deputy leader Anglu Farrugia.

Dr Busuttil said Dr Muscat was repeatedly being caught in situations where he was not saying the truth. The government’s first instinct was not to say the truth, but to hide and manipulate the truth. The official statement on November 19 was not the first example.

When the Opposition and the independent media revealed the falsity of the government statement, the government attacked the Opposition.

Dr Busuttil said the Opposition did not omit or manipulate any of the recordings in its possession. It published the recordings as it received them. And it published all of them. In contrast, the prime minister on Saturday night only issued one recording, the one which suited his purpose.

It was a disgrace to hear how a policeman, tasked with protecting the people, was heard firing twice while also talking on the phone. The prime minister had known of the recordings for three weeks, and had not said anything.

Dr Busuttil denied that he had made an attack on the independence of the judiciary.  What he had done was criticise the fact that the prime minister had said that the minister did not need to resign only to be appointed after the inquiry, thus leading to suspicion of a cover-up.

In the past Dr Muscat has said he had no confidence in Mr Justice Manche’ when he was heading  an inquiry. Wasn’t that an attack on the judiciary?

The opposition had refused to have any part in the latest inquiry because it felt it was not needed. This was a mess of the prime minister’s making, and he was the one who needed to clear it.

The inquiry was aimed only to delay or deviate matters. The true version of events was already known and what was needed was for political responsibility to be shouldered.

The inquiry had established that there had indeed been a cover-up, something which everyone knew already. So why did the prime minister wait?

The government had not said the truth, and it was clear, even after the inquiry, that the truth had not been totally revealed. What was the role of the prime minister?

The Board of Inquiry had not sent for the prime minister but had learnt that he had gone to bed despite such a serious incident. Could this be believed? Would the prime minister publish his call records? He had admitted to The Times of Malta that he had spoken on the phone that evening with Gavin Gulia, Kurt Farrugia,  Manuel Mallia and his Chief of Staff but he still claimed that he did not know that night that the shots were not warning shots.

So the police knew they were not warning shots, the minister knew, Kurt Farrugia knew, the people knew, and the prime minister did not? How could that be possible?

Clearly this was a case of ‘wake up and smell the coffee’.

What credibility did the prime minister now have? What did this episode say about his political judgement? The prime minister had shown himself to be weak. He had abdicated his responsibilities to act immediately. And after the inquiry was issued, he did not even fire Dr Mallia, but left it up to him to resign. So could the people trust him to take decisions on their behalf?

The prime minister had not removed Dr Mallia willingly, but only bowed to pressure from the opposition, the media and the people.

Dr Mallia needed to go because he was the responsible minister. The inquiry report showed he had know about the statement before it was issued, and he knew that the shots that were fired were not warning shots. But if Dr Mallia was removed for issuing a mistaken statement, then even more responsibility should be assumed by Kurt Farrugia, communications coordinator at the Office of the Prime Minister, who actually wrote the statement. And it was Dr Muscat who was politically responsible for him.

It was contradictory for Dr Muscat to claim he was instilling a culture of accountability when he did not act for three whole weeks. Was he joking?

He was even demanding action from him (Dr Busuttil). His reply, Dr Busuttil said, was that he would continue to do his duty and say the truth. Whenever he was in a corner, Dr Muscat came up with some report to deviate attention. Last year he came up with a report on John Dalli claiming all sort of things, and nothing happened.

And now a Labour MP (Marlene Farrugia) had said this was the beginning of the end of the Labour Movement. What he could say was that the prime minister’s credibility had taken a severe knock and he had lost his moral authority.

The Opposition was not perfect. It had paid for the mistakes of the former government, but in making the allegations against Dr Carm Mifsud Bonnici today, what did the prime minister expect, that he resign his seat in Parliament? He had not even demanded that of Dr Mallia.

The Opposition would continue to expose the government. The people would judge whether the Opposition was right to reveal the truth of what happened on November 19 and which the prime minister and his government tried to hide. They would also judge whether Dr Muscat could henceforth be believed, Dr Busuttil concluded.