Updated with government statement at 2.15pm
A court judgement yesterday ruling that the Home Affairs Ministry had interfered in the actions of the police board confirmed what the Opposition had been saying for the past four years that the country’s institutions were being undermined, Nationalist Party MP and outgoing deputy leader Beppe Fenech Adami said.
Dr Fenech Adami said in a statement that the undermining of institutions had led to the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia last month, as the killer knew that Malta’s institutions were weak.
He highlighted the fact that the country had had five police commissioners since 2013 who failed to investigate the country’s biggest political scandal, that of the Panama Papers, in spite of an FIAU report on corruption and money laundering.
Although the government was trying to act as if everything was business as usual, what the country was going through was not normal, he said. It was not normal for a journalist investigating scandals of corruption and money laundering to be murdered, Dr Fenech Adami insisted.
He said the Opposition would insist on justice and the strengthening of the country’s institutions, with the first steps being the dismissal of the police commissioner and the attorney general.
In its judgement yesterday, the court also observed that the police board had been improperly constituted and lacked jurisdiction, rendering its deliberations and report null.
Government to appeal judgement
But in a statement this afternoon, the government said the court's decision, which it will be appealing, reflected the independence of the courts.
The ruling confirmed the presence of the rule of law and separation of powers, where institutions kept each other in check.
Contrary to the Opposition, the government did not attack institutions when they decided against it and praised them when they decided in its favour.
The government respected institutions always and only used the disposable legal remedies to contest their decisions.
In this case, the government did not agree with the court's decision on a technical point and would be appealing.