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?

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.

[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.]

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.]

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.

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?]

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 – 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.