The serious allegations being levelled at the government by Stephen Brincat, who has just relinquished his post as head of the Oncology Department, warrant a magisterial inquiry. What is being contended could constitute the elements of a crime. This, however, will not happen.

It is... disturbing to witness how the judiciary’s role of scrutinising abuse in the public sector has been brought to nothing- José Herrera

It has become opportunistic for the government to appoint interdepartmental inquires when faced with serious allegations of wrongdoing. This practice has, over the years, been abused and misused to a point that such investigations today no longer attract public confidence.

It’s no secret that over the last few years this Administration has been destabilised by very serious allegations involving corruption and illegal activities. Surprisingly, notwithstanding that in certain instances magisterial inquiries were duly conducted according to law, the government still opted to appoint parallel interdepartmental boards of inquiry.

It is only too apparent that the reason behind the appointment of such boards of inquiry was to shield the Administration from the possible negative backlash that would have been created by the magisterial inquiries. These suspicions were further confirmed in those cases when the conclusions of the inquiring magistrate and those of the government-appointed boards were in conflict. Here, without exception, the minister concerned would seize the opportunity to embrace the conclusions of the board that has totally exonerated the government. It is therefore disturbing to witness how the judiciary’s role of scrutinising abuse in the public sector has been brought to nothing.

All this runs counter to the spirit of the law.

Article 546 of the Criminal Code obliges the courts to hold inquiries upon the receipt of any report, information or complaint in regard to any offence liable to a punishment of imprisonment exceeding three years.

It is of the utmost importance that investigations are carried out by the judiciary. It is not in the spirit of the law for a minister to appoint his own confidant to investigate allegations levelled against him or his ministry. More often than not, a retired member of the judiciary would carry out such investigation and would, as experience has shown, exonerate the government.

It must be recalled that, shockingly, a few years ago the government was actually intent on restricting the powers of inquiring magistrates. The Minister of Justice had gone so far as to propose amendments aimed at changing the law to make it mandatory for the magistrate to seek prior permission from the Chief Justice before holding an inquiry.

This was being proposed in the aftermath of certain judicial inquiries which had embarrassed the government.

The proposed amendment was, to say the least, scandalous because it amounted to an attempt by the Executive to interfere unduly in the administration of justice.

The legislation would have greatly limited the independence of the individual members of the judiciary. All judicial inquiries would have been subjected to the whims of the Chief Justice, whose office under this Administration appears to be far too attached to the executive organ of the state.

However, when the changes were being debated in Parliament in committee stage, other MPs and I vehemently opposed what was being proposed and managed to make the minister retract and finally withdraw the amendment altogether.

The Nationalist Party in opposition had chastised the then Labour government for its attitude towards the courts, criticism which might, to a certain extent, have been justified. Ironically, over the last few years it appears that it is the Nationalist Administration that has been demonstrating a certain disdain towards the administration of justice.

Dr Herrera, a member of Parliament, is the Labour Party’s spokesman on justice.