The saga of the various inquiries into the tragic death of Gunner Matthew Psaila in an army training accident last February continues. The public will recall only too well that this led to no fewer than three inquiries being established to examine essentially the same facts about the circumstances of the incident that led to the young soldier's death.
The first was the standard magisterial inquiry. What was remarkable about this was the unusually short time it took to be completed. Not only was it abnormally swift - by contrast we have been awaiting the results of the magisterial inquiry into the fatal shooting by the police of Bastjan Borg, in Qormi, since mid-2008 - but the verdict led to Lieutenant Christian Vella and Lance Bombadier Marvic Peregin being charged with the involuntary homicide of Gunner Psaila through negligence. They were also charged with committing a crime they were in duty bound to prevent. These are not insubstantial crimes, which today still hang over them, even if they must be presumed innocent until proved otherwise.
The second inquiry was unusual in a different way. It was set up by the Office of the Prime Minister, which is directly responsible for the Armed Forces of Malta, and was chaired by retired Judge Victor Caruana Colombo. The Caruana Colombo inquiry reported a few weeks ago and, most commendably, its findings were made public. But this inquiry seems to have reached markedly different conclusions to the magisterial inquiry, the findings of which, incidentally, have not been published. It concluded that the death of Gunner Psaila was a case of "misadventure", adding for good measure that "No individual can be held to blame for the death of Gunner Matthew Psaila."
The third inquiry has also reported. This is the AFM's board of inquiry, an internal military investigation, which normally follows automatically when there has been an unusual military incident. Boards are held under terms and procedures laid down in the Manual of Military Law, which governs all aspects of military discipline. They are internal inquiries but nonetheless professionally objective. They are designed to expose lessons to be learnt from weaknesses in drills, procedures or training with a view to making improvements in the future and, where necessary, to apportion blame.
The AFM has announced that the board of inquiry had to determine whether Lieutenant Vella and Lance Bombadier Peregrin should be suspended pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings they are facing as a result of the magistrate's verdict on the death of Gunner Psaila. The board of inquiry has decided against their suspension from army duties. In the circumstances, did one really expect otherwise? After all, an eminent retired judge, supported by two distinguished members - one of whom with close experience of military operations and training - sitting for months, taking evidence from those directly involved in the incident, concluded that this was a case of misadventure with no individual to be held culpable!
The key question left hanging over this whole affair, however, is whether the holding of so many inquiries into the one incident has helped or hindered the cause of justice. Likewise, society has a right to know why the Prime Minister felt the need to order an independent inquiry and who advised him to do so.
As things stand now, and the decision not to suspend the two accused forces the issue even more, the victim, the bereaved, the accused, all AFM members and society have been grossly ill-served.