The judge’s son should stay out of it – it’s much better that way, for everyone’s sake
I got a message early this morning saying that David Farrugia Sacco, who featured heavily in the Labour election campaign but wasn’t elected, and who has since been appointed to the Police Board, was on TVM’s breakfast show defending his father, the judge who faces impeachment proceedings, not as his son but as his defence counsel.
I had by that stage missed almost all that was said, but I did get the last bit where David Farrugia Sacco said that he and his father want the impeachment hearing to take place before his father retires this year, because it’s not a nice thing to have people saying that he retired before he could be impeached.
That speaks volumes. If Judge Farrugia Sacco thinks that there is even the slightest chance that he will be impeached, he would retire beforehand. Calculating the risk and their concerns as expressed, it is better to retire to the sound of gossip which will dissipate and eventually be forgotten, then to risk going down in the annals of Maltese history as the first judge to be impeached by parliament.
It all depends on whether the parties give their MPs a free vote on this matter. If they do, Farrugia Sacco stands a very strong chance of survival because a two-thirds majority is required and many Labour MPs (possibly even a couple of PN MPs) will not vote for his impeachment.
It is significant that the prime minister, in his first comments about the matter yesterday, said after the Commission for the Administration of Justice’s decision that “impeachment PROCEEDINGS should now go ahead at once”. He did not say, I noticed, whether he himself thinks the judge should be impeached or not.
I think he should be asked this question directly.
The prime minister, even if there is a free vote, will be left with the difficult matter of his personal vote. Will he vote for impeachment and create ruptures and resentment in his party, not least where the judge’s son is concerned, but then patch it up with the gift of a position (for the son if the father is impeached; for the father if he is not impeached) as he did with Anglu Farrugia?
Or will he vote against impeachment and try to justify that decision?
Whatever the situation, it would be best if David Farrugia Sacco were to stay away from this in public and limit his role to supporting his father in private, leaving the defence counsel and public advocacy in the hands of other lawyers. He is too involved emotionally – obviously – and this affects his thinking on the matter and the way is arguments are perceived.
Also, it is bad for him. He looked upset and vulnerable on television and I felt sorry for him.
9 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Apparently Muscat was asked further questions but refused to comment.
“Addressing the House, Joseph Muscat said the House Business Committee will now decide on the way forward, refusing to comment any further on the case.” (MaltaToday)
I refrained from commenting about the Prime Minister’s actions in your previous post on this subject. I believe your analysis is right. The prime minister must have some strategy up his sleeve.
Probably even David Farrugia Sacco’s appearance on PBS (which I did not watch) is part of the game – an attempt to push forward the Farrugia Sacco family despite the prime minister’s statement (which was unavoidable in the circumstances) in order to prevent damage to the party.
A doctor does not medicate his own family and it’s the same rule with lawyers.
I listened to the interview where Austin Sammut called for a better written code of ethics. If you have integrity and are worthy of holding a position of judging others in the first place, you will act ethically regardless of any written code.
As we still want to excuse the miserable sods that pass for authority in this country, we continue to use the ass of the law as a scapegoat.
What is there to defend? The Commission for the Administration of Justice told him he was in breach of the code of ethics but he defied them.
If he retires it will be the most honourable way out. But then there is the education minister who will bring it to mind, anon, that in this country we do not have the culture of resignations.
It is through a country of political appointments, transfers, removals, for which none of Labour is as sensitive as David is for his father.
Surviving the impeachment motion is not a ‘not guilty’ verdict. It is what it should be, survival from an impeachment motion. It stands with the public to deem if he was guilty or not. A verdict which the public has the right to have and own.
I was also sorry to see David Farrugia Sacco there. It is a golden rule for a lawyer not to defend any client with whom he/she is heavily involved – in any manner whatsoever. Emotional involvement is the worst kind because it obfuscates your otherwise-objective vision.
“Or will he vote against impeachment and try to justify that decision?”
My guess is that he will vote in favour with the knowledge that there will not be enough votes for it to be upheld, and I suppose this would be agreed beforehand with the judge.
In some ways the inverse of what Lawrence Gonzi did with the divorce bill, but of course very different in many other ways.
A genleman would have bowed out gracefully from the scene retaining some some vestige of dignity. But then , I do not think that we are discussing gentlemen in this case.
Prescient. Anglu Farrugia’s ruling on the original motion could potentially set the process back until well after his retirement.