Not counting those by the court or the police, which are held for specific purposes, inquiries ordered by the government or conducted by public institutions, like the National Audit Office, are primarily meant to ensure transparency and accountability. Inquiries are, therefore, a useful tool, provided, of course, they are conducted in a serious manner and their findings acted upon, seeking further answers where necessary.
The sort of inquiry that was held after the violent Safi Barracks incidents on January 13, 2005 is a classic example of what an inquest should not be. The 97-page report submitted 11 months after the event told the public very little more than what it already knew.
In his report on the Delimara power station extension contract, the Auditor General implied that he could see smoke but was unable to prove where the fire raged. The public still awaits answers.
Recently, the Finance Ministry ordered an inquiry into allegations that Enemalta had illegally disposed of a chemical by burning it in a field. However, it was decided that the names of those conducting the inquiry should not be divulged.
The Minister of Justice and Home Affairs was correct in ordering an inquiry amid allegations about police investigations involving Cyrus Engerer and his father in view of Mr Engerer’s defection to the Labour Party.
Judge Albert Manchè, who headed the inquiry, reached three main conclusions:
1) Although it could not be excluded that the decision to file charges against Mr Engerer Jnr following a report against him by a former partner was related to his resignation from the Nationalist Party, there was no evidence of any irregularity on the part of the police.
2) The Times had not breached any court order when it published the charges filed against Mr Engerer. In a democratic society, freedom of information should prevail over a person’s “right” to hide the fact that criminal proceedings were instituted against him, especially when the person in question occupies a political office.
3) The head of the Prime Minister’s secretariat at no time tried to interfere in the work of the police on whether they should proceed or not against Mr Engerer Snr, who was suspected of drug possession.
The inquiry gave some clear answers but there are still some clarifications that need to be made.
Why did the cyber crime unit conclude its investigations into the allegations against Mr Engerer Jnr on March 7, 2010 but he was only interviewed by the police on June 23, 2011? He may have spent a lot of time overseas but, on the other hand, he was in Malta on many occasions.
Is it possible the police did not know who Mr Engerer Jnr was, as one officer claimed, given his exposure on the media?
Could the “reliable” person who called a very senior police officer on July 6 alleging that Mr Engerer Snr was using and trafficking drugs have had other motives? Mr Engerer Jnr resigned from the PN on July 15. Judge Manchè notes that the last drug-related conviction Mr Engerer Snr had was in 2002. So, if he is a regular smoker, how is it possible he was not investigated since, the judge wonders.
Without jumping into conclusions, it is in the interest of the police to now prove beyond any doubt that they acted correctly all the way. They need to follow up the Manchè inquiry.