A soldier at the heart of the ‘army gate’ controversy could have been discharged on the strength of a legal proviso authorising the commander to take such drastic measure.
However, a military source who spoke to the Times of Malta on the condition of anonymity, warned that if that were the case, the Armed Forces of Malta could be held liable for damages.
Questions on the matter sent to both the AFM and the Home Affairs Ministry remained unanswered.
The controversy revolves around a video clip uploaded on social media last week in which bombardier Godwin Schembri mocked the army’s top brass over a recently-installed free-standing gate, meant to control access to the AFM’s shooting range in Pembroke. However, the absence of a fence on either side rendered the structure completely useless.
Bdr Schembri flagged the matter by swerving around the closed gate while driving a military truck, amid ‘colourful’ remarks by himself and giggles from other soldiers onboard the vehicle.
In such a scenario, the aggrieved soldier might seek redress in court
He also questioned the decision to spend money on the gate, claiming the army had a shortage of vests, socks and gloves.
It was subsequently reported that the officer was given the marching orders, a decision that fuelled further criticism when it transpired the AFM had built a brick wall to close the gap flagged by Bdr Schembri. This prompted the opening of a Facebook page in his support, which already had 1,800 members at the time of writing.
The Times of Malta on Monday tried to establish if the bombardier had indeed been discharged or not but neither the army nor the ministry were forthcoming
Army sources said that, by law, the commander was vested with the authority to make such action. Subsidiary legislation 220.03 states that “a man of the force may be discharged by the commander in any case in which the commander is satisfied that, in the interest of the service, a man’s service is no longer required or should be terminated”.
It could not establish with certainty if the reports that Bdr Schembri had been dismissed by Brigadier Jeffrey Curmi were true or not.
The sources said that if Bdr Schembri was dismissed on the strength of the legal proviso already mentioned, the decision could be challenged in court and the AFM could be held liable for damages.
“In such a scenario, the aggrieved soldier might seek redress in court on grounds that the disciplinary measure is both disproportionate and arbitrary,” they said.
“Had the dismissal been the result of a formal disciplinary procedure in line with the Malta Armed Forces Act, the AFM would have been on much more solid ground.”
They noted that “this sort of banter” within army circles was a “relatively normal” occurrence. Though the incident was aggravated by the fact that it ended up in the public domain, the claims made by the bombardier proved to be correct, after all, the sources remarked.
“Perhaps, it would have been more appropriate to resort to the normal disciplinary procedure and make decisions accordingly. In any case, the dismissal was disproportionately harsh because there were other measures to take, including demotion,” the sources concluded.