In its response to the Caruana Galizia family’s legal demands, the government has stopped just short of declaring the Caruana Galizias to be enemies of the State. It has accused the widower and sons of the murdered journalist of a one-sided contemptuous attack on the Maltese State, intended to undermine its sovereignty, credibility and authority nationally and internationally.

Which is rather close to what enemies of the State like to do, at least when getting started.

At the heart of accusation and counter-accusation lies the court case begun by the Caruana Galizias two days ago. The family want Deputy Police Commissioner Silvio Valletta removed from the investigation into the assassination. The family says his involvement could prejudice its chances of obtaining justice.

In the sights of the government, however, is a much longer charge sheet drawn up by the family’s British legal advisors, the major firm of Doughty Street Chambers. It’s a 22-page document that declares the family’s human rights have been systematically broken: Daphne Caruana Galizia had insufficient police protection in the last period of her life; her family’s rights have been given scant attention by the police since the murder; and the investigation is being compromised.

Although accusation and counter-accusation have received wide coverage, some public confusion about the issues remains. The government has treated the Caruana Galizias’ charges as grave, but many of the government’s own supporters have dismissed them as trivial: the carping of a family of divas, behaving like the unreasonable hotel guest who, having received emergency accommodation during a hurricane, complains about the absence of room service.

Well, is the Caruana Galizia family simply carping when it complains of not having a police liaison officer to keep them abreast of developments, and of learning new information through the media or Twitter?

The question arises because of a dual misunderstanding. One follows from the Doughty Street Chambers’ demand for an apology.

In legal terms that means an admission of wrongdoing. But a demand for an apology is often associated with complaints about customer service. It might thus appear that the family is throwing a hissy fit about proper communication channels, despite having seen an international investigation and three men arraigned for the execution of the murder.

In fact, the families of murder victims have rights with respect to proper handling of information (the same way that the families of deceased hospital patients have certain rights to information and privacy). But the more serious misunderstanding is another.

The Caruana Galizia family’s relation to the police is not just as victim of a crime. Each family member is also a potential murder target

In this case, the family’s relation to the police is not just as victim of a crime. Each family member is also a potential murder target. They could have access to the same information that probably (and here probability is enough) led to the assassination. It has been reported that Matthew, Andrew and Paul Caruana Galizia have been independently advised to stay away from Malta for the time being.

In other words, being kept informed by the police about developments in the case – certainly before the rest of the world knows about it – is essential to the family members’ security (or at least their sense of security). They need to know as much as they can, as quickly as possible. They are not carping about a missing luxury; they are distressed by life and death matters.

They also need to be able to interpret the police leaks to the press. The family has assumed these leaks were detrimental to the successful closure of the case (some leaks, for example, gave clues to where certain vital information might be). It’s possible that the police were actually using these leaks as part of an investigative strategy. But you can’t blame the family for fearing the worst.

It has declared that the police left it in the dark and did not acknowledge several communications. By the time the family turned down the offer of a meeting on November 30, relations had long deteriorated to outright mistrust.

It’s unsatisfactory for the government simply to dismiss this part of the accusations as a one-sided attack. If it blames Doughty Street Chambers for forming an opinion only on what the Caruana Galizia family said, then the police should state its version of the facts.

Was the Caruana Galizia family really left without a police liaison officer? Were its communications really ignored for long periods?

If true, is it usual for the families of murder victims not to have a liaison officer? Selecting the Caruana Galizia family for special treatment is one kind of failing; the routine absence of a liaison officer for anyone is another, particularly if the blame is to be shared with preceding administrations.

The government, however, reserved its ire for the demand that the remainder of the case be led by external, impartial investigators because, in the words of Doughty Street Chambers: “Agents of the State may have had direct involvement in [the] assassination. It is clear that State authorities bear responsibility for the death or that they are, or may be, in some way implicated.”

From this the government has correctly concluded that the family holds it in utter contempt (if that wasn’t clear enough already), although it’s not correct that the family is also showing contempt for the magisterial inquiry and the courts.

The family’s point is principally about the police investigation: the search for whoever ultimately ordered the murder. The family doesn’t trust the police to be impartial and objective if the trail leads to someone close to the government. The police has already shrugged off investigating such people, when suspicions of money-laundering were brought to its attention by the State’s financial intelligence agency.

The government comes to another two correct conclusions.

One is that the family is effectively saying that the Maltese police are disqualified from leading an impartial investigation. However, once more, it is not correct to assume the family is demanding the investigation is led by non-Maltese. A team led by a retired police commissioner like John Rizzo would also be an external investigation.

The second correct conclusion the government draws is that the credibility and sovereignty of the Maltese State is being called into question.

That is exactly what the Caruana Galizia family is doing. It is openly stating that it does not rule out that the person(s) who ordered the assassination is a key figure in the government. Nor does it count on the police pursuing the truth wherever it leads.

However, the Caruana Galizias are laying the blame for the loss of credibility and sovereignty of the Maltese State at the door of the government. It’s evident they believe that the State, and the sovereignty of its Constitution, have been undermined by crony appointments.

The fact it has hired a prominent international legal firm shows it’s not making that accusation lightly. The Caruana Galizia family isn’t attacking the Maltese State. It is simply declaring its belief that the State is no longer its own master; that it’s the creature of those who are meant to be its servants.

In fact, the family stopped just short of declaring the government an enemy of the State.

ranierfsadni@europe.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.