Joseph Muscat gets hold of the wrong end of the stick
The barbarians are at the gate - and this time, they're wearing pink ties.
Media Release
23 ta’ Settembru 2010
Stqarrija mahruga mill-Kap tal-Oppozizzjoni Joseph Muscat
Ir-rizenja tas-Segretarju Parlamentari Dr Chris Said
Nirreferi ghar-rizenja ta’ Chris Said minn Segretarju Parlamentari wara li l-Qorti ordnat li jinbdew proceduri mill-pulizija fuq spergur.
Mhijiex l-intenzjoni tieghi li nidhol fil-mertu partikolari tal-kaz.
Madankollu ninsab imhasseb serjament bl-istqarrija li l-Prim Ministru ghamel fl-ittra tieghu lill-Onorevoli Said, liema ittra giet ippubblikata mill-Ufficcju tal-Prim Ministru.
Il-Prim Ministru kiteb hekk: “Filwaqt li qed naghmel dan, jiena nittama li l-konkluzjoni bla dewmien ta’ dan il-process legali jkun jippermettili li nerga’ nahtrek fl-istess kariga li inti okkupajt sal-lum b’tant energija u dedikazzjoni.”
Din id-dikjarazzjoni pubblika mill-Kap tal-Ezekuttiv f’pajjizna tammonta ghal pressjoni fuq il-gudikatura, li suppost tithalla taghmel ix-xoghol taghha b’indipendenza shiha u s-serenità mehtiega.
B’dak li ghamel il-Prim Ministru llum, qed jirriskja li jippregudika dan il-kaz sensittiv.
Dr Joseph Muscat
Kap tal-Oppozizzjoni
Ufficcju tal-Komunikazzjoni
Partit Laburista
32 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
They say that ignorance is bliss.
The Labour Party should put that on its new emblem.
1980 will be remembered for the way in which pressures were brought to bear on the judiciary. In the church schools case, the judge assigned to determine it had rejected three requests for his disqualification pressed on him by the prime minister, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici.
The judge declared that no legal reason existed for him to give up the case. In response the PM moved a motion in parliament to suspend the judge from his functions.
The motion also authorized the minister of justice to suspend any judge in future whose behaviour did not meet with his approval The judge abstained.
A newspaper headline read Farewell to Judicial Independence Page 240, John Manduca’s “A Flavour of the Mintoff Era.”
Daphne, I don’t know what amounts to ‘pressure on the judiciary’ but I don’t think that Lawrence Gonzi should have issued that statement.
I believe it is like saying ‘Oh, I believe he is innocent, let’s hope the courts quickly conclude and prove him innocent so that I can re-instate him’ (I mean, he would not have said what he said had he not believed C. Said is innocent).
[Daphne – It is obvious that Chris Said is innocent. Perjury is dependent on two things: lying (as opposed to confusion or error) and perverting the course of justice (not applicable in this case as it didn’t matter whether custody was granted in the afternoon or the evening). I can see where you’re coming from, but context is all. In situations like this, decent people have to stand up and show support for the victim of this craziness – and the prime minister may have many flaws but he is a decent person. I lived through the worst of the 1970s and 1980s and was fully aware of what was going on then, but it was only with hindsight, when I was older, that I fully understood the context: that none of that could have happened if there had been a free press, a democratic culture and people who were prepared to stand up and be counted rather than cowering behind the parapet and protecting No. 1.]
What a different treatment than that received by someone else, who was found ‘guilty’ even before court procedures began. And don’t get me started on the police confession – no police confession is worth the paper it’s written on unless the law of the land allows for a lawyer to be present during the actual interrogation. But that’s beside the point – the point is that the Prime Minister should let justice run it’s course before commenting.
[Daphne – I was aware that the person about whom you speak had a cocaine habit even before the information was given under oath in court today, and that’s why I stayed off the subject. My view of the situation is that Nikki Dimech should be advised to stop dealing with the media and giving interviews, to resign his public position and to find the inner quietude he needs to sort out what is the most pressing priority right now, and it is not his court case, nor his public relations difficulties. If his parents were not aware of his problem until now, they are aware of it today and should advise him accordingly. Meanwhile, I hope the media – independent and party political – have the decency to leave this troubled chap alone so that he can find the peace to sort himself out. I think that the media’s prurience in this situation is beyond indecent. It is the story of a mayor in one locality out of 60+. It is of no interest at all to the general public – not even Sliema residents are interested. I am actually beginning to feel sorry for the man, because he seems to have a weak character and is being pushed and pulled from pillar to post by those who want to use him in search of a good story that is anything but that.]
Yes, Chris Said is truly innocent of the charges being levelled against him, against the advice of the Court of Magistrates, against the advice of the Attorney General and against the advice of the same Police Commissioner.
So only Mr Justice Michael Mallia is sane of all these people? He should have remained a magistrate and not accepted the promotion to the higher court if he is incapable of distinguishing between the letter and the spirit of the law.
Daphne, I don’t think you fully understand the difference between the capacity of a prime minister and that of common folk. Whether he is hands-down not guilty is completely irrelevant.
Insinuating one’s personal opinion in a public statement about a pending court case is a huge DON’T in any politician’s manual, never mind a prime minister’s. Whether this was done to put pressure on the judiciary or simply out of foolishness is another matter altogether, but it is surely a mistake.
[Daphne – It was done out of common decency and he was entirely correct. I’ve told you before that you and I come from entirely different cultural backgrounds and that – not politics – is the reason we see things differently. This is another such case. The prime minister – for that matter, like Chris Said – did what is known as the gentlemanly thing. Joseph Muscat, on the other hand, did not. Another example of ungentlemanly behaviour: Nikki Dimech. Yet another: Robert Arrigo. Shall I go on?]
As I read it, the PM’s statement was that he “hopes the conclusion will permit him” to reappoint Chris Said. There is no opinion whatsoever stated here except that due to his merits the said PS will be offered back his post if the conclusion so permits.
Conversely this also implies that he will not be, if the conclusion is otherwise. What’s all the fuss about – isn’t the PM the only person responsible for choosing his cabinet?
He even manages to miss the bandwagon and fall flat on his face. Amazing. Well, at least that explains the chin.
Petty childish comment which only serves to alienate thinking people further from ever considering PL as even close to being an alternative government.
Joseph Muscat would do well to use his remaining time in the Opposition and explain to us still yearning to know what is really motivating his politics and his party.
Talk, of course, is not enough. He and his party need to convince us of the political convictions which will underpin his policies if ever elected to serve.
All we have observed so far is a lot of papering over the crack within his party, shirking of responsibilities, renovations of emblems for fundraising purposes, elves and morons falling over each other at Maltastar.com and crushed hopes for private members’ bills.
Where is the meat, please?
And of course the husband’s lawyer just happens to be Justyne Caruana.
DID THE P.M. SAY THAT IF CHRIS SAID IS FOUND GUILTY HE WILL SUSPEND ALL THE JUDGES??????
[Daphne – I said I wouldn’t upload comments that didn’t abide by the rules, but I have to make an exception in this case. I suggest that before you form an opinion, you read the facts in independent newspaper reports. You won’t get the facts from discussions on Facebook walls. If you had any intelligence at all, you would have been able to assess whether something like that is true or not.]
@ Daphne – Yes you are right. After rereading the whole story I found that the PM did not in fact say that, but that thing happened long ago. Hope it will NOT happen again.
This goes to show how (in my opinion) stupid this guy really is. If he wanted to score some political points with the moderate, he should have defended Chris Said.
So many gaffes already – I really cannot see the next general election as a foregone conclusion as it is being made out to be.
[Daphne – Oh, I would say it is a foregone conclusion. After all, Gonzi almost lost against the tried, tested and found wanting Alfred Sant two years ago. Poplu tas-swat.]
A strange and interesting case this involving the judiciary.
Frivolous appeals are usually thrown out.
The judiciary has again succumbed to lower depths and failed as to what the general public expects. Are political or personal issues to blame here?
I agree with the prime minister’s statement, putting his foot down to these dangerous stupidities, irrespective of what virgin politicians like Joseph Muscat think.
He has put his foot in it once again, hairline fracture and all.
He knows that the converted are morons.
What he cannot understand is that the unconverted, whose vote he is eyeing, can sift the wheat from the chaff.
And the wheat from the chavs, too.
L-aqwa li “qed jirriskja”. Short and sloppy.
How come the folks at the Labour glasshouse, who are not exactly famous for using good language, knew about the Maltese translation for perjury: spergur?
It was Marisa ML looking up the definition and Manwel Mallia confirming it.
The statement is definitely not one fit for a statesman.
What the PM said were two things:
1 he is hoping for the process not to be delayed (and it shouldn’t be): from the facts appearing in The Times, it is clear that all the evidence has already been collected; hence the court will only have to confirm what has been said before passing judgement;
2 if Chris Said is cleared, he is back on board;
Two legitimate messages from a PM who is respecting the decision to resign, respecting the man who resigned, and respecting the court that has done, and will keep on doing its work.
So Chris Said is accused of perjury because he made a mistake when he said that something happened in the evening when it had happened in the afternoon.
What should happen to someone who misplaced a welfare concept by a few centuries! I guess be purged from the political contest?
In the car VAT registration case, Joseph Muscat went on record last year stating that whatever the outcome of the judgement on the case, he would refund the money to the people.
Is this not pressure on the case as a hopeful prime minister?
Is this not a conflict of interest, considering his personal interest in the case by owning two cars, and hiding his name in the list?
Is this not a declaration to influence the courts?
His statement today in reaction to the Chris Said case is one which can be referred to as TAL-QALLAMENT.
Joseph Muscat has said too many things in two years. They will all come to haunt him in the coming two years.
“THE BARBARIANS ARE AT THE GATES” I hope everyone realises the impact in that statement, and thinks long and hard about the possibility of having “Mr Fireworks” and the Stepford wife leading the country.
Muscat is 100% right on this one. Gonzi was way out of line.
[Daphne – And so were the people who put their names to large advertisements in The Times, declaring that they believed Peter Paul Busuttil was innocent in – what was it now? – 1984? Good thing you weren’t around then, or you might have dropped dead of an apoplexy.]
And how about the relentless campaign fomented by the MLP and actively pushed by Alfred Sant in the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana?
ooooppps won not one
You mean when Joseph Fenech aka Żeppi l-Ħafi received no less than three Presidential Pardons for armed robbery, drug trafficking and attempted murder?
[Daphne – Are you familiar with the concept of turning Queen’s (state) evidence? Or do you just listen to Super One? Il-vera injorant, jahasra. The trouble with you is that you’re not bright, but just a smart Alec, which is why it was so easy for Alfred Sant to sell you the notion that he was ‘pardoned’ rather than explaining to you that those who turn state evidence are automatically free from liability to prosecution. Otherwise, why would they turn state evidence? It happens in all democracies.]
PP Busuttil? You mean the man who (probably with his full consent) was subjected to a mock frameup by some policemen who were later handsomely rewarded by the PN Government?
[Daphne – You are insane.]
Daphne, You will not believe me, but this time, I have to agree with Dr. Joseph Muscat’s statement.
I had the same thoughts when I heard about the PM’s statement on radio this afternoon – or was it this evening?
I think the PM should have avoided that statement. In the PM’s shoes, I would have left Dr. Said’s position vacant, but I would not have commented about it.
Am I missing something?
[Daphne – Not something, but everything.]
Dr Joseph Muscat – if you will insist on the title – was not wrong in what he said in his statement. He was wrong to issue it at all. His concern is not the independence of the judiciary. Were that the case, he’d have fried much bigger fish much sooner.
I can understand Dr.Said’s situation, that he is being accused of something which, in substance, is not a wrong. Who cares if it was the afternoon or the evening, and as one comment said here, how does one define afternoon vs. evening?
However, if I am understanding the case, the allegation of perjury against Dr. Said arises because the Court has applied the principle of “form” rather than “substance.”
If I understand well, “form” is a guiding principle by default at law.
However, I also thought that the judiciary has a power to apply the spirit, and hence the substance, of the law, which does not seem to have happened in this case.
This notwithstanding, I do not think that there is anything in the statement of Joseph Muscat that makes any charge against Dr. Chris Said. I understand that Muscat’s comments are directed at one of the paragraphs in the letter by the PM.
However, in my view again, Joseph Muscat made a similar mistake recently when he entered the fray about firework incidents after an independent board of inquiry had been set up to investigate a major fireworks incident, when all he should have done was to make a clear public statement saying “I have a conflict of interest in the matter” – punto e basta.
chavsRus and Ciccio – Actually Joseph Muscat just confirmed that this case has strong political innuendos. No decent and ethical lawyer would have advised his/her client to proceed. Someone else is pulling the strings from the glasshouse in Hamrun.
A woman hires two men to murder her husband. Both hired hit-men are eventually caught. One of them (or both) turn state evidence, and both are given life sentences. The wife who did not actually pull the trigger herself receives the death penalty, but the case is solved at least. That should bring some justice to the husband’s family and kids. That’s STATE EVIDENCE. Maybe this should finally enlighten some closed minds why Joseph Fenech received such treatment.
[Daphne – The same thing happened in many of the Mafia trials in Italy, where convictions of Mafia bosses were only possible with the cooperation, in return for immunity from prosecution, of those who worked with them.]
Two famous trials would not have happened without the cooperation from “pentiti” or turncoats: the Massimo Processo in Sicily, and at the same time the trial of John Gotti in the United States.
Both had connections when Magistrate Falcone visited DA Giuliani before both trials. Sammy “the Bull” Gravano was second in command to John Gotti, and carried out all the murders for the Mafia family. Still he was given immunity from prosecution and put in the witness protection programme. Imagine if that happened in Malta.