The recent decision by a court in the so-called oil scandal case not to consider accepting a gift by an employee of Enemalta as corruption is, in my view, incredible.

The magistrate overseeing the case found that the employee in question did actually accept silverware (hold your breath – amounting to an estimated €8,000!) from a businessman involved in oil procurement but that this was merely “unethical behaviour” on the part of the employee, not corruption.

The employee was so daring that that he took the gift to a well-known jeweller to part-exchange it for a preferred silver plate. What kind of logic is that by our esteemed court?

What is the court telling all those upright employees who have withstood a lifetime employment of similar temptations? That they have been fools throughout their career?

Lesser people have been condemned by our courts to prison terms and a hefty fine for offences which pale in comparison to this case.

Gifts under whatever guise facilitate corruption and make the employee in question vulnerable to manipulation by the gift provider. Giving gifts of this kind, in whatever seemingly innocent wrapping, ought to be condemnable in all circumstances, more so by the courts.

I feel that the Commission for the Administration of Justice should urgently call a meeting to discuss this extraordinary decision by the Magistrates’ Court.

In my view, this decision has serious repercussions and needs to be deliberated in a serious manner by the authorities concerned.

Part of the remit of the Commission is to go into the workings of the courts and the behaviour of judges, magistrates, lawyers and legal procurators. So this is exactly the right forum for this strange decision to be discussed (and, if possible, corrected).