The damning inquiry into the suspicious death of two migrants released on Wednesday night is shocking on two counts.
The so-called ‘Valenzia report’ provided a scathing commentary on the way Malta treats migrant men, women and children who are running for their lives.
The report effectively condemns a detention policy that seeks to deprive migrants of their humanity by locking them away out of sight, away from scrutiny of their conditions, with their human rights severely compromised.
Some 70 per cent of the soldiers assigned to man the detention service in 2012 were army rejects; the “worst people in the army” who nobody wanted. Being deployed to the detention services was considered a punishment.
It described the environment inside the camps as “horrendous”, with extreme heat, dirt and no privacy for 200 to 300 inmates living in dormitory-style halls, and found evidence of sexual harassment.
The writing was on the wall. And sadly, the words were written... in blood. Mamadou Kamara suffered a fatal heart attack when detention officers allegedly kicked him in the groin.
Some still see nothing wrong with asylum seekers being placed in cells after they land in Malta, even if their only crime is to flee persecution and yearn for freedom.
But what is equally shocking is the timing of the Valenzia report release. Under siege in the wake of the shooting incident involving a minister’s driver, the government decided to table the report last Wednesday, as Parliament was debating the Manuel Mallia case.
One little detail was omitted: the report had been sitting on a shelf gathering dust since at least December 2012 with its recommendations unheeded.
In other words, the government is using an inquiry into the killing of an immigrant to detract attention from the ‘big story’.
Of course, the former Nationalist administration has a lot to answer for. Why were the detention services used as a form of punishment for soldiers? Why were so-called rejects posted there? Why were the report conclusions never published? Why was no remedial action taken at once?
The Opposition should have no problem in insisting on a parliamentary discussion on the report and to present proposals to revise the impact of detention. Unfortunately, however, they will probably never be brave enough to campaign for the abolition of a system that criminalises asylum seekers in the eyes of many.
While the government is right to highlight the conclusions of the disgraceful conditions, in a joint statement on Friday, eight NGOs said the change in administration had actually brought the review process and any dialogue with civil society to a halt.
Joseph Muscat cannot scream blue murder and then choose to ignore the recommendations put forward on grounds that the situation inside the camps has “changed” and that operations are now running smoothly.
Sadly, till this day, the media cannot verify these statements since we only get access to selected detention camps (the refurbished ones). Sadly, mandatory detention for people fleeing strife still remains one of the few policies that draws political consensus.
A man from Mali was brutally killed in detention in 2012. The least anybody with any respect for human rights wants to see is that conditions inside detention are improved. What they do not want to see is a report probing a migrant’s death being used as a political weapon.