Protection given to accomplices in crime to nail big fish is a useful tool to prepare a robust prosecution and secure conviction. It is therefore imperative that those proposing a presidential pardon or whistleblower protection ensure they have good reasons for doing so.
A government will end up with egg on its face if it transpires that such protection was merely granted for political ends. Likewise, it will badly hurt the credibility of the police handling the prosecution.
In this regard, we are already treading on thin ice in the case of the presidential pardon given to George Farrugia.
Just a few days ago, the former chief projects officer at Enemalta, Ray Ferris, was acquitted of all charges brought against him in connection with the oil procurement scandal.
Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera was unequivocal in her judgment: the version of events relayed by Mr Ferris – who was accused of corruption, fraud and trading in influence – was more credible than Mr Farrugia’s.
The magistrate also commented that the corruption charge was “possibly made in error” because none of the evidence backed it up, adding that “at no point was it proven that Mr Ferris had offered anyone any advantage, neither directly nor indirectly”.
One ought to bear in mind that what Mr Farrugia has told the police is being used by the prosecution in a number of oil procurement-related cases. Of course, the conclusions reached by the court in the case involving Mr Ferris do not necessarily apply to the other prosecutions but they cannot be ignored either.
Mr Farrugia’s credibility has been questioned on a number of occasions, mainly in political quarters.
Some politicians are now also attacking the credibility of Gozitan whistleblower Joseph Cauchi on whose ‘confessions’ the police seem to be building their case against the husband of former Gozo minister Giovanna Debono.
There are two lessons to be learnt here: one, that politicians should be careful when making such statements because they may be shooting themselves in the foot and, two, that the police need to be 100 per cent sure they are in possession of cast iron evidence when dealing with such sensitive cases in which politics play such a big part.
The police should be in a position to say no to their political masters if they harbour any doubts on the evidence they have in their possession.
The police must also be held to account when it comes to prosecutions. Taking the wrong man to court is as bad as throwing the book at a suspect only for the court to then completely deflate the prosecution case.
That happened in the case of a man who had originally been accused of the attempted murder of the former director general of the Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises – GRTU. Not only did the police fail to prove the charges but the magistrate even ordered them to charge the alleged ‘victim’ with perjury.
Why was the court able to see through the alleged victim’s claims but the police did not, notwithstanding their expertise in investigations and prosecutions?
They are not there simply as administrators but as law enforcement officers who must take account of the evidence before them before taking an informed decision over whether there is a realistic prospect of prosecution. If there is not, a case should not end up in court.
The press may run the daily risk of publish and be damned. But the police cannot prosecute and be damned or they will undermine the justice system.