Whoever’s advice the government sought, it can’t have been that of its own appointee to the head of the Justice Reform Commission

Published: January 30, 2014 at 11:48am

Bonello

I suggest you read this important story in The Malta Independent, if you have not done so already.

Effectively, the Labour Party has worked to protect its own while pretending otherwise.

Even those who were gulled into voting Labour for the first time, telling themselves that they were actually voting for Muscat and his Progressive Movement, now have to admit (at least to themselves if not in public, which I fully understand can be very difficult) that this is indisputably Muscat’s standard method.

He says what he thinks will earn him brownie points from his target audience/s, stating intentions which are in fact duplicitous and not earnest, and uses this false front as cover for his real plans, working out that it will be some time before people notice, even if they notice at all.

He also leaves plenty of scope for rebuttal of accusations that this is what he has done, by leaving no marks on paper and by operating, at least on the face of it, strictly by the book, as with the John Dalli ‘No, I did not tell the Police Commissioner what to do’ case.

We are in for an extremely rough ride. The tragedy is that those who voted Labour but are of low intelligence won’t even notice, while those who voted Labour but who are of average to high intelligence will find it necessary, for a variety of reasons, to keep their opinions quiet even after they have overcome the initial but great psychological difficulty of making that all-important internal, private admission to themselves.




8 Comments Comment

  1. curious says:

    Muscat acts like the proverbial Pharisees. He takes care of the legalities, uses doublespeak but then doesn’t care to uphold the spirit of the law.

    It happens all the time. One such example is the handling of the impeachment motion against Farrugia Sacco. He follows the basic laws and procedures while at the same time gets his way. A true, honest prime minister would have agreed to revive the motion, together with the Opposition.

  2. Tabatha White says:

    The fact is, that the Labour government remains there by misrepresentation.

    Misrepresentation is fraudulent.

    Perhaps the Attorney-General is in two minds about that as well.

  3. David says:

    The Speaker asked for advice form the leading constitutional expert on the impeachment motion and followed his advice and gave other arguments in his ruling. If we believe in the rule of law, the relevant laws and procedures must be obeyed and not broken. Naturally these laws and procedures can be changed, and one of the tasks of the Justice reform commission headed by Judge Bonello was to suggest reforms in this field.

  4. David says:

    The issue apparently overlooked by Judge Bonello is that Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco can contest the continuation of discussion and the decision on the original impeachment motion in court which, whatever the outcome, would have further delayed the impeachment proceedings. The Speaker’s decision is the most prudent one which he can take in these circumstances.

    [Daphne – Thank you for that input, David. Are you a student lawyer or a lawyer already? I ask because you only feel motivated to comment about matters of law, but it worries me because your arguments are always so badly flawed.]

  5. Jozef says:

    That puts Owen Bonnici in a fix, he was adamant rules have to adhered to yesterday.

    Fact is, this is a government which won’t uphold the spirit of the law or the notion of justice in respect of an electoral mandate.

    They’re there to serve, not concede.

Leave a Comment