Of course these things matter
From L-orizzont’s coverage of the Noel Arrigo trial – and what a shame that no other newspaper appears to have reported this, and that I have had to resort to that rag for this piece of information:
Meta rrefera għal dak li qalet il-prosekuzzjoni dwar il-fatt li l-eks-Prim Imħallef dam dawn is-snin kollha biex stqarr li Anthony Grech Sant verament kien wassallu envelop b’Lm5,000 u dan il-fatt ammettih wara li kellu l-opportunità jisma’ l-provi kollha, l-Avukat Giglio ikkonferma dak li qal l-akkużat fix-xiehda tiegħu meta nsista li stenna dan il-mument biex jagħmel din l-istqarrija fuq parir li kien ingħata mill-avukati tiegħu wara li tressaq il-Qorti.
“Konna jien u l-Avukat George Abela, illum il-President ta’ Malta (li qabel kien ukoll l-avukat difensur tal-eks-Prim Imħallef Arrigo), li tajnih il-parir biex din l-istqarrija jagħmilha fil-mument opportun u nerfgħu l-piż tal-parir li tajna għax nemmnu li dan hu dritt fundamentali”, saħaq l-avukat difensur.
So George Abela, wearing his hat as Noel Arrigo’s lawyer, advised the disgraced former chief justice to hold back the crucial bit of information that Anthony Grech Sant had given him an envelope containing Lm5,000 in cash as a bribe/gift.
And now Dr Abela, wearing another new hat, chairs the Commission for the Administration of Justice.
I have no doubt that untold numbers of people are going to rush in to tell me ‘Oh, but as his lawyer, that was his job’. Fine. I accept that.
But in no way do I consider it remotely acceptable for the lawyer who defended Noel Arrigo, and who advised him – as was his brief – on how best to get away with it by releasing crucial information strategically should now be in the top policing role to decide on the behaviour of judges and magistrates.
This is not an observation on Dr Abela’s integrity. It is an observation on how public trust in the administration of justice is undermined by the mere perception of wheels within wheels.
The chairman of the Commission for the Administration of Justice is automatically the president of the republic. There should be a mechanism in place to correct any difficulties or awkward that might arise when the president of the republic is not the ideal person to chair the Commission. There was the perception of such awkwardness when Guido de Marco was president of the republic and commission chairman.
We cannot keep burying our heads in the sand and pretending that none of this matters.
25 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
He also believes that comments in the media “undermined the authority and the impartiality of the judiciary, as well as the trust that the Courts should enjoy from the people”.
21 August 2002
“Dr. George Abela, who presented the request on behalf of former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo, said that the PM’s declaration encouraged the public to consider his client as guilty and insisted that this is evident, among other things, from certain reports and comments in the media on the case.
He said that this not only detracted from the presumption of innocence that Dr. Arrigo as an accused person should enjoy, but also undermined the authority and the impartiality of the Judiciary, as well as the trust that the Courts should enjoy from the people.
Dr. Toni Abela, who presented the request on behalf of former Judge Patrick Vella, said that in his declaration, the PM ?decided the guilt of the two Judges?.
He criticised the fact that the public was informed with the parliamentary motion calling for the removal of Dr. Arrigo and Dr. Vella from their posts when the Commission for the Administration of Justice requires the Speaker of the House of Representative not to allow in any way such a motion to be given publicity.
Dr. Toni Abela also presented in Court various reports and articles that appeared in the local newspapers, with the defence insisting that these writings have prejudiced the former two Judges because in them, they are already being considered as guilty.
On his part, Attorney-General Anthony Borg-Barthet, who is leading the prosecution, called on the Court to reject the defence?s request because he said that the PM?s declaration did not prejudice in any way the judicial process.
He said that it was only a list of what had resulted to the Police until that time and which justified the arrest of the then two Judges.
Dr. Borg-Barthet insisted that the PM?s declaration was needed to assure the people that the country?s executive was not doing anything illegal or abusive in respect of Dr. Arrigo and Dr. Vella.
He noted that the PM did well to explain why the then two Judges were asked to go to the Police and there was also the need to say what had resulted from the investigations until that time.
The PM was careful during the press conference and invited everybody to expect the outcome of the investigation, the Attorney-General told the Court.
He added that a case like this is bound to attract the media and said that with the exception of some ?tough articles which took a stand?, the media were careful to report the facts and the editorials showed respect towards Dr. Arrigo and Dr. Vella.
The former Judges also deemed it proper that they should address the media when they tendered their resignations, Dr. Borg-Barthet said.
He insisted that the reporting in the newspapers did not influence in any way the presiding Magistrate, who should continue hearing the compilation of evidence and declare whether there is enough evidence to issue a bill of indictment against the two former Judges.
Neither is newspaper reporting expected to have an influence on further stages of the judicial process, irrespective of whether it is heard by a member of the Judiciary or else a jury is involved, the Attorney-General said.
Dr. George Abela replied that in his declaration, the PM was categorical and ?issued a condemnation? in respect of the then two Judges, even if afterwards he appealed to the public to expect the outcome of the investigation.
The people have understood well this declaration and among them there could be the jurors that in the future might be asked to pass a judgement on Dr. Vella and Dr. Arrigo, he said.
Dr. Toni Abela insisted that what happened had the ?ventilation of the State?, meaning that the State remained passive while the then two Judges were being attacked in the media.
He insisted that the State and the media should not make comments of guilt before the accused is judged.
The Attorney-General concluded his submissions by saying that the Court can still hear witnesses even if the case passes to the Constitutional Court.
On the other hand, Dr. George Abela insisted that this is not possible because the Magistrates? Court would have to stop and expect the directives of the Constitutional Court and then follow them accordingly.”
Dr Abela tried again at the ECHR which saw nothing wrong with comments made in the media:
5/23/2005
Il-proċeduri twalu hekk kif il-kwistjoni spiċċat saħansitra quddiem il-Qorti Ewropea għad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem. L-ex Imħallfin ressqu tliet ilmenti u t-tlieta kienu miċħuda mill-Qorti Ewropea. Huma sostnew li inkisrilhom id-dritt tagħhom li l-każ jinstema� quddiem tribunal imparzjali u indipendenti, li ma ngħatawx id-dritt tal-preżunzjoni ta� l-innoċenza u li ma ngħatax rimedju xieraq meta l-Qrati Maltin iddikaraw li kien hemm ksur ta� drittijiet iżda ordnaw li l-każ jkompli jinstema’. Il-Qorti Ewropea għad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem iddikjarat li t-talbiet ta� l-ex Imħallfin kienu bla bażi jew inkompetibbli mal-proviżjonijiet tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea.
Il-Qorti Ewropea qalet li l-każwa taż-żewġ ex Imħallfin għadha pendenti fil-Qrati Maltin u għalhekk it-talba tagħhom ma taqbilx ma-proviżjonijiet tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea dwar smigħ imparzjali. Dwar it-tieni ilment, il-Qorti Ewropea qalet li l-każ tagħhom se jkun deċiż quddiem ġuri u d-deċiżjoni tingħata fuq il-provi li jitressqu hemm u mhux fuq dikjarazzjonijiet li jkunu saru barra. Il-Qorti Ewropea ma sabet xejn irregolari fir-rimedju li ngħataw l-ex Imħallfin minħabba d-dikjarazzjonijiet li saru fil-konferenza ta� aħbarijiet dwar l-arrest u l-investigazzjoni dwarhom.
L-Avukati George Abela, Toni Abela u Therese Cachia dehru għall-ex Imħallfin Noel Arrigo u Patrick Vella. F�Malta il-każ ta� l-ex Imħallfin qiegħed fi stadju fejn qed jinstemgħu xi eċċezzjonijiet u wara mistenni jkun appunat biex jgħaddu ġuri.
I’m making some tea. “Infuse for two to three minutes”, say the instructions. By that time we’ll have the usual barrage of headlines on “l-opinjonista Nazzjonalista Daphne taghmel attakk vili u moqziez fuq il-President tar-Repubblika.”
Jien ili li tlift il-fiducja tieghi fil-gustizzja hawn Malta. Hawn wisq hbieb tal-hbieb, biex nuza espressjoni maghrufa sew.
Leaves me lost for words. Very sad. U miskina Malta u ahna li nghixu fuq din il bicca gzira.
Daphne, naf li ma tibza minn l-ebda bambin, imma nahseb ahjar tieqaf ta. Ghax iktar ma mmorru, iktar qed jinkixfu affarijiet, u wisq qed igghelna nirrealizzaw li wasalna “at a point of no return”.
U certa li dawk kollha li jikkumentaw hawnhekk ihossuhom imwegga, imma ma nafx jekk qattx u jekk xi hadd qatt jista jirranga dawn l-affarijiet kollha. Ahna wisq zghar, kulhadd jaf lil kulhadd, u sfortunatament il flus kollox.
Mentalita bazwija, nammetti, imma bil-mod biex tinbidel. Pero xorta nammira id-determinazzjoni tieghek u li qatt m’ int lesta tarrendi. Jrid altru jkollok certu karattru ghax kultant xorta narak qisek tishaq fl-ilma sfortunatament.
I agree that there should exist a mechanism whereby the President of the Republic could be substituted whenever he feels that he should be recused. Having said that I believe that the present incumbent can be trusted to act correctly as President of the Republic just as he acted properly when previously he was acting as a lawyer for the defence.
Daphne, well done….another interesting article, making us all aware of your ‘wheels within wheels’ concept. You take the time to acquire the knowlege and expose the details we’d all love to know about.
The article above is intelligently relaying the message clearly and in detail. Unlike many other of your write-ups, we are left to reach our own conclusions.
I think that the huge credit you deserve is being diminished by the way try and expose many other issues. Many articles are just as interesting. However, these are written with a much undeserved, offensive attitude.
Keep up the good work; In my opinion there’s no need to highlight who screwed who and who’s getting bald, fat and ugly.
Who screwed who is VERY relevant – especially when the screwer and the screwed can screw you up.
U ifhimni.
words of wisdom !
@hamallu malta
“there’s no need to highlight who screwed who ”
It is relevant when the magistrate presiding the case is screwing the defendant’s brother.
If the magistrate handling a court case of yours was screwing the brother of your opponent, I don’t think you’d object to this fact being highlighted to the four winds in the most colourful way possible. In my opinion that is.
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate if the magistrate were to abstain from the case?
While all this is coming to light there are some who are more interested in whether “their” theatre will have a roof.
or whether Stacy did it
There’s also Malta Song and San Remo Song Festival, Antoine.
We heard a lot about the ex chief justice and about Grech Sant and about L-Imniehru.
what I never read about is L-Imniehru’s lawyer. Police tapped L-Imniehru’s telephone calls – 13 hours of tapping, they said – his mother, his son, and even his mother-in-law. Is it possible that he never called his lawyer? And if he did, was there anything interesting in those conversations?
A few days before this case exploded, the president of the republic, Guido de Marco, said in public that we never had any case of bribery in Malta’s legal system.
Well, that was a laugh.
Who was L-imniehru’s lawyer? Dr G. Caruana Curran?
I have been following you for a long time now and this is the first time I am posting a comment. I admire you and what you fight for.
I have to say this. This country is too small to have institutions that function properly. It should have never become independent. Had we remained under British rule this mess and many others, like the one at the VAT department, would have been solved by simply bringing someone over from the UK. Someone, who wouldn’t have any connections with Maltese politicians, businessmen lawyers and the rest.
I agree with ‘pat’ but I am not just ‘ imwegga’ but also in despair. Keep up it up, Daphne. Hopefully, something good will come out of this.
Just to let you know that the word is out “Whatever you do don’t read Daphne because she reveals who killed Archie Mitchell”. I happen to know – it takes about 4.2 seconds to Google and get the answer – but I suspect this is a deliberate ploy to keep a few people away from your blog. I could not find it myself.
When people are asked not to do something, it is usually the cue for them to do it. It’s human nature, after all.
OUT OF SUBJECT BUT…
It is in today’s Independent that Astrid Vella is excluded from sitting on the board of a reformed MEPA because she is a shareholder in a construction company. Now that rounds up some corners.
This is someone who picks and chooses which proposed project the environmental lobby will shoot down and to which project they will close an eye. Could the hope of winning some contract for the construction company influence such a decision?
Such a jolly chap Ezekiel is. Always fun when he is around.
I wonder why …