Last Thursday we debated a motion calling for the establishment of a board that will carry a public inquiry into the circumstances of the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

A public inquiry is different from the criminal investigation that is currently underway.

A criminal investigation answers questions of a criminal nature: who stands behind Daphne’s murder? Who did these people enlist in their quest to cut a citizen’s life short in such a brutal way? These are questions that pertain to a criminal court.

A public inquiry seeks to answer entirely different questions. Could State authorities have done more to prevent her murder? Did the political climate that was created around Daphne Caruana Galizia and her writings enable the masterminds of her murder to think that they could do so?

These are questions of a human rights nature and ones which should force an honest period of reflection in our country and a genuine effort at reconciliation, truth seeking and achieving lasting change.

The questions of a public inquiry are equally important as those of the criminal investigation that is currently underway. The public inquiry does not need to be postponed because it seeks to answer different questions. The more we delay the inquiry, the more difficult it will be to answer these questions.

We therefore support in principle the need for a public inquiry into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. We have always said so. We also think that questions of the same nature arise in the cases of Karin Grech and Raymond Caruana, although in entirely different contexts. We therefore think that a public inquiry should be extended to cover their cases too.

Given the fundamental nature of the questions that a public inquiry will ask, we should aim to design an inquiry of the highest standard. We want a public inquiry that sets the precedent, brings truth, justice and lasting change.

Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Fiona Murphy are two recognised human rights experts who have weighed in on how a public inquiry should be designed at the behest of the Caruana Galizia family. They suggest an inquiry that is truly independent of the Maltese police, government and politicians. They argue that the inquiry should be conducted by a panel composed of individuals with no political or government links, such as respected international judges.

We do not have such a mechanism under Maltese law. Our Inquiries Act only provides for the Prime Minister to appoint such an inquiry. We need to devise a mechanism that satisfies the progressive standard of Gallagher QC and Murphy.

The questions of a public inquiry are equally important as those of the criminal investigation that is currently underway.

The original proposal that was tabled before the house provides for the appointment of a board of inquiry by two-thirds of Parliament. However, we do not think that the people who appoint a board of such importance should include people who attacked Daphne and subjected her to harassment during their lifetime. The decision should be left to an impartial arbiter.

In addition, the cases of Karin Grech and Raymond Caruana have historical importance and have become political symbols in some quarters. Again, their cases, and the immense injustice inflicted on them and their families because of the inability of the State to solve these crimes can only begin to be remedied if we make a genuine effort towards seeking truth and justice.

This is why we have tabled legal amendments to establish an independent truth and justice commission headed by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe.

As head of the truth and justice commission, the Commissioner for Human Rights would establish three public inquiries - one for each of the cases of Karin Grech, Raymond Caruana and Daphne Caruana Galizia - on terms of reference that she will determine together with a legal panel of Malta’s most senior judges and a panel of representatives of the victims.

Each member of each board will be shielded from political interference or manipulation by being given equal treatment as a judge.

Each board established by the truth and justice commission would have all the powers to summon witnesses and would be able to request the collaboration of Malta’s investigative authorities if it needs to.

More importantly, it will have the power to recommend that certain witnesses be given a presidential pardon, but only if the information such witnesses give helps achieve the purpose of the commission: truth, justice and lasting change.

At the end of its work, each board will publish a report. A copy of this report will first be given to the victim’s representatives so they can review and comment on it. The comment of the victims’ representatives will be published alongside the final version of the report.

We do not exclude that civil litigation and criminal prosecution may follow on the findings of the truth and justice commission, in addition to the criminal proceedings that are currently underway.

On Wednesday, our House of Representatives will be asked to vote on this proposal.

I ask all members of Parliament to step away from finger pointing and accusations and use this occasion to create a real opportunity for national reconciliation.

I humbly ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to vote in favour of truth, justice and lasting change that Malta needs and that Karin, Raymond and Daphne deserve.

Godfrey Farrugia is leader of the Democratic Party