Just over a year ago, a comprehensive independent inquiry reported into the administration and operation of Corradino Correctional Facility following a series of disturbing incidents there. Among the conclusions, which were published by the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, were a number dealing with the disturbing drug culture in prison and the need for proper drug rehabilitation programmes.
Among other things, the inquiry had recommended that there should be a policy of zero tolerance to drugs in prison and that this should be underpinned by organisational improvements to the way the battle against narcotics was conducted. Random drug testing should be stepped up. It also recommended that the comprehensive drug policy, drawn up a year before the inquiry but not yet implemented by that time, should be introduced forthwith.
Inmates who tested positive on entry to prison should be given all the help necessary for rehabilitation. A qualified "coordinator" should be placed in charge of treatment and made accountable for the rehabilitation of inmates in his/her care. Females should have the same opportunities as males to follow treatment programmes.
The whole programme of rehabilitation and preparation for resettlement in society should be markedly improved and properly funded.
These were serious recommendations made by the independent board to counter the institutional shortcomings it had unearthed in this and virtually every other area of prison operations and administration.
Judging by the comments recently made publicly by the education officer who ran the school at Corradino for years and by Fr Mark Montebello, who does a lot of work ministering to inmates in prison, there are still considerable gaps in the way drug rehabilitation programmes in prison are conducted.
It is alleged that the decision-making process of the prison board charged with responsibility for determining whether and where to send inmates on rehabilitation programmes is not clear. Because it is not clear, it does not appear to be above board. It is axiomatic that the system used by the authorities to determine which inmates are eligible to attend a drug rehabilitation programme should be made more transparent because only through greater transparency can greater accountability be achieved.
One inmate has claimed that "in prison one had to be either well known or have money" to get help on one's drug addiction. The acting director of the correctional facility, Abraham Zammit, described such comment as "unjust and unfounded". Yet, it ought to be noted that last year's independent inquiry had also found that some prisoners appeared to exert undue influence in many spheres of prison operations.
The more things change, the more things seem to remain the same even at Corradino. The public comments about drug rehabilitation seem to have exposed an area - identified by the independent inquiry sitting some 18 months ago as in need of urgent correction - which is still not running as it should.
This may or may not be the tip of the iceberg with regard to the implementation of the many recommendations highlighted by the independent inquiry over a year ago. It would surely be in the public interest to know what progress has been made in implementing the key recommendations made not only in the case of drug abuse but also in all other operational spheres of the prison too.