So…is the Attorney General one of life’s survivors, or what?
Former Police Commissioner John Rizzo said under oath in court that he believed there to be grounds to arraign John Dalli, and that the Attorney General was of the same view.
Given that the Attorney General, unlike the police commissioner, has not been moved along since, people are asking why, if he thinks Dalli should be arraigned, the new police commissioner has over-ruled him.
But has he? Or is he simply playing a survivor’s game of matching his views on Dalli’s arraignment with whoever happens to be police commissioner at the time?
The Attorney General’s fresh opinion was explained by Peter Paul Zammit and quoted in Malta Today on 10 June:
Zammit on Saturday said that the police investigations in relation to the report by the EU’s anti-fraud agency OLAF were ongoing, but as things stand there was no evidence to incriminate John Dalli. He added that he had already consulted with Peter Grech, the Attorney General, who agreed with his assessment.
18 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Hmm barking up the wrong tree. The AG is the lawyer of the government. By calling for his head not that of his boss one is calling for an even worse appointment. Tipo xi Pawlu Lia. Lord help us.
[Daphne – Who’s calling for his head? The Attorney General is not ‘the lawyer of the government’.]
He has a dual role. Anyway, you want to go after the person that breached the constitution (again);
“(3) In the exercise of his powers to institute, undertake and discontinue criminal proceedings and of any other powers conferred on him by any law in terms which authorise him to exercise that power in his individual judgment the Attorney General shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.”
The Attorney General is not the government’s lawyer and he is not subject to the Commissioner of Police.
In this particular case he may have agreed to stay the case temporarily and wait for the outcome of the new investigation by OLAF.
I am of the opinion (and I am not an authority on such matters) that this delay, if that is what it is, does not reflect positively on the AG. However, one has to keep in mind that traditionally no AG has ever come out to subject himself to the Press or public opinion. He is and should be above all that.
How is it possible that the AG’s views were in agreement with the former Police Commissioner and barely a few weeks later, this decision changed with the current Police Commissioner?
Has Police Commissioner Zammit now become spokesman for the Attorney General?
I have always known the Attorney General to be a person who acts in accordance with accepted standards of morality, justice and uprightness.
In view of his known righteousness, in the present circumstances after John Rizzo’s sworn declaration in Court, it would be appropriate if he were to clarify matters.
We should bear in mind that John Rizzo’s statement was made under oath in court, but Peter Paul Zammit made his on television.
In these circumstances the Attorney General is doing the job done by the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK.
It is simply unimaginable that the Crown Prosecution Service would act according to who happens to be Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time.
This would be considered outrageous in any proper democracy.
Unless the Attorney General clarifies his position soon, he will appear to laymen like me to be kowtowing to his political bosses.
In that case, his position would most definitely be untenable, because everything must not only be above board, but actually seen to be so.
Anthony, I agree with most of your comments. The AG in colonial times was known as the Crown Attorney General and his colleagues were called Crown Counsels. Te late President emeritus Guido de Marco was a Crown Counsel up to the elections of 1966.
The part I don’t agree with is when you stated that the AG should clarify his position. And then what? Start a debate, like it or not, between reds and blues with him caught right in the middle?
The AG should be able to issue statements himself. Why does he need to have the police commissioner as his rapporteur? Why does the media not ask him directly?
It’s time to have an independent prosecuting authority from the state, as is the case in other countries with either independent investigating and prosecuting magistrates or the Director of Public Prosecution (the latter as in the the UK). In Malta the AG doubles as the chief government adviser and the chief prosecutor.
Having said that the AG is constitutionally independent in deciding on the taking of criminal action. Nevertheless he is at the same time still the main government legal consultant and is still a public officer and part of the executive branch of the state. My impression of the current holder of this office is that he is an honourable man.
It is not amiss in this context to recall some prominent personalties who have occupied this prestigious office in the past as Sir Adriano Dingli and Sir Anthony Mamo.
Perhaps Simon Busuttil should not be calling for the Commissioner’s resignation, but his prosecution for obstructing the course of a criminal investigation. What’s the statute of limitation on that?
We are witnessing the possible birth of a modern age totalitarian regime. Consider the following:
1) Broad ministerial discretion in police and military forces – replacement of Commissioner of Police, re-assignment of staff to Secret Service and promises of promotion in return for their silence, rapid promotion of officers from major to colonels within a few weeks irrespective of their lack of training and effective promotion upstairs of existing brigadier.
2) Pre-election talk by PM about the end of party politics and the birth of a new movement.
3) Promotion of party lackeys within the various ministries.
4) Placement of party lackeys in various ambassadorial posts.
5) Threats of push-back that would have been in breach human rights in the case of minority immigrants.
6) Censorship and deletion of files pertaining to supposed free media (can state media ever be free?), refusal of CoP to concede interviews, polarisation of state media through the promotion of party supporters at PBS and censorship (removal) of certain discussion programmes.
7) Proximity and growing ties with autocratic and despotic regimes.
8) Creation of data ‘super agency’ dangerously pooling personal information without consulting the data protection commissioner (his head will eventually roll).
9) An attorney general who, through the court testimony of the former COP, appears to be “undecided” if not unprincipled.
10) Perks and jobs for ministerial spouses and relatives.
I would not be half bothered by one or two situations of abuse. This has happened before and it will happen again.
However, unless I am being paranoid, all the above situations taking place in a 6-month period are of serious concern.
You are not paranoid. All of that has happened. Add to your list the accompanying, ongoing effort to neutralise opposition and undermine the Opposition.
Reply to Osservatore:
Naqbel miegħek perfettament. Għandna għax nitħassbu bis-serjeta. Tal-biki jekk mhux tat-twerwir!
The Commissioner of Police Peter Paul Zammit is quoted to have said that “there was not enough proof to arraign former EU Commissioner John Dalli and prove that he was guilty without reasonable doubt as required by law and the Courts.”
I ask the Commissioner of Police “Was the same yardstick used when the Police arraigned Darryl Luke Borg a few weeks ago?”
I expect the Attorney General to come forward and publicly state who of the two Commissioners is saying the truth about his stand on the Dalli affair. This is not for him to choose whether he would do it or not. It’s not an option for him but compulsory.
Qed tara, hanini. That is how it works. You should know, being a statist and all that. It gets more complicated than that on the mainland, and very much so at a global level, well beyond the reach of your ‘international network of spies’.
Tal-biki din il-mara.
Two out of Twenty… two for panache.