The protests have, if anything, exposed the ineffectual state of the Nationalist Party and contributed to the party’s disturbed spirits. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated for a motive we do not yet know for sure, but against a background of institutional weakness that is apparent to anyone whose mind is clear of cant and spin. It’s not our cardboard public institutions that killed her. But they made her life much more dangerous and more difficult to protect.

Those of us who are publicly demonstrating their outrage are not showing disrespect for the institutions. On the contrary. We are outraged that these institutions – the police force and the office of the Attorney General among them – have been brought to such a sorry state by those meant to lead them.

It is respect for these institutions that bring us to regard the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General – the current incumbents, that is, not the offices themselves – with such cold contempt. They have utterly failed the country they are supposed to serve.

And yet, Caruana Galizia is not yet buried but the critics are already being criticised for their lack of public spirit. The apologists for the government have the nerve to accuse the outraged of damaging Malta.

The public protests, we are told, should not be partisan; they should not be hijacked by the Opposition. In fact, they’re not. The protests have, if anything, exposed the ineffectual state of the Nationalist Party, contributed to the party’s disturbed spirits, and led some depressed PN politicians to mutter privately that, at the current rate, the Civil Society Network could soon coalesce into a new party and surpass the PN.

But when a Labour apologist says that the protests should not be partisan what he or she means is that no criticism should be uttered. You may mourn Daphne but not point fingers at the government that, over the last four years, has systematically undermined the institutions safeguarding law and order.

Yes, legal experts, civil society groups and the independent media flagged this deterioration as it happened. Yes, international surveys of transparency and good governance bear out this deterioration on a number of counts – and, of course, publish the results for international consumption. But if the public expresses its outrage and demands accountability, then it’s playing into the hands of those who want to damage the national interest.

If anyone is seriously damaging the national interest, it has been ministers who have attempted to defend their record with the international press.

Take Justice Minister Owen Bonnici, who stood up in Parliament in the week of Caruana Galizia’s assassination and accused the Opposition of handing uncomfortable information to the international press who interviewed him.

Presumably, he couldn’t fathom how the international press was able to google the information, or simply search Caruana Galizia’s blog, for themselves.

Now, consider Bonnici’s performance with the correspondent of the Financial Times, Michael Peel, and judge for yourselves who was damaging Malta.

Lawrence Cutajar is responsible for not taking action in cases that she was then compelled to reveal herself

Peel’s piece of October 20 is called ‘Brutal murder exposes Malta’s murky politics’. He shows he was familiar with Caruana Galizia’s blog-post, published a year ago, about how 10 out of the 14 new judges and magistrates had a direct Labour Party link. He asked Bonnici about it.

First, Bonnici brought the number down to a third. Something he can only do by not counting, say, Magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo, the daughter of the former deputy leader Anglu Farrugia, and who was nominated before she was even legally eligible to accept the post. Nor was he counting Judge Wenzu Mintoff, the editor of Labour’s Sunday newspaper right up to his appointment.

Next, Bonnici told Peel without a blush: “If you believe that politics is an honest job where you are trying to make your country a better place, why should someone be disqualified from being a judge or magistrate just because they have a political past?”

Peel gives this quote without comment and, without missing a beat, goes on to write drily: “It’s against this backdrop that Caruana Galizia published her most damaging stories earlier this year.”

“Against this background.” Peel clearly expects his readers need no further illustration of what the title of his article calls Malta’s ‘murky politics’.

It’s the background of a Justice Minister who cannot see – or pretends he cannot – why no other country with a well-functioning legal system picks its judges and magistrates straight out of politics. It’s not because politics is unworthy or intrinsically dishonest. But because you cannot practise politics without being partisan; and you cannot be both a judge and partisan; and the people standing before a judge shouldn’t have to worry about his or her past partisanship.

Was Peel unfair? If anything, he pulled his punches. He could have told his readers about Toni Abela’s record – published during his Court of Auditors debacle – of looking for a “Labour policeman” to help squash news of a crime at a Labour club. If the man believes in “Labour police officers”, is it unreasonable for people standing before him to worry about “Labour judges”?

Peel’s article was framed by what international critics of Malta have been saying – that Malta is “an example of how deteriorating governance in some member states threatens the union from within”. And, in the article, one of the prime witnesses for the prosecution was the minister of justice himself.

Bonnici isn’t the only minister whose egregiousness is damaging Malta’s reputation and interests. The police minister, Michael Farrugia, has come out defending the Police Commissioner for having nothing to resign about – for all the world to see that he is too clueless, or too cynical, to understand the real issue.

The reason Lawrence Cutajar should go is not the fact, in itself, that Caruana Galizia was assassinated. You can have the best protection in the world and the enemy can still get you.

But she didn’t in fact have the best protection in the world. She lost some of the police protection she previously had (despite refusing it) when John Rizzo was still commissioner.

Furthermore, Cutajar is responsible for not taking action in cases that she was then compelled to reveal herself – giving her some very dangerous enemies. We don’t have to decide that it was this or that enemy that got her. It’s enough to see that the multiplication of possible suspects emboldened the real enemy (since it makes any murder investigation much more difficult) and made it more difficult for her to protect herself.

We have a police minister who cannot – or pretends he cannot – see all this. The international press knows this, as do other European governments and politicians. They also know that the same minister is posing as the true defender of our public institutions.

No wonder they’re all talking about the rot. With defenders like these, who wouldn’t be worried about the rot spreading?

ranierfsadni@europe.com