Another view (2)

We should not expect people in public life to be saints.

Being untainted from mistakes, sins or failures cannot – realistically – be part of any call for applications to hold public office, as flaws are a characteristic we all share.

People in public life do have a right to a private life, but this right is limited.

Whenever their private deeds and choices have, or can have, a negative bearing on the execution of their public duties, the public has a right to know about these deeds and choices.

This is especially so if what has been done is criminal or even if it is considered to be a serious misdemeanour.

It is also true, however, of a lifestyle (not just an incident or two, unless very grave ones) which, even though not criminal, can bring the public office into disrepute or ridicule.

The behaviour of people in public life is covered by a code of ethics which is more stringent than the laws and regulations which cover people not holding public office.

These are principles which I think are generally accepted.

The interpretation of these principles changes in different eras and cultures.

It is also legitimate to have varying appraisals of how these principles are to be interpreted in concrete situations.

The media have a very important role to play in this respect. They have to determine whether the case warrants quenching the public’s desire to know.

To seek to invariably satisfy that desire is unbecoming of any serious media organisation but – equally – silence, when it is not due, is not a legitimate course of action.

Quite naturally, Caruana Galizia’s abovementioned article cannot be considered in a vacuum. It was part of a barrage of posts about Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera.

Caruana Galizia’s excessively pungent style, the unrelenting salvoes, her perceived ‘personal’ motivation, and the inclusion of people who do not hold public office in the controversy have undermined – in the minds of many – an appreciation of the essential point she wants to make, that is, that the magistrate’s lifestyle jars with her role of exercising sole discretion in cases she has heard.

This is a very serious accusation and has to be examined by all now that it has been publicly raised, albeit in a style that is often too harsh, and in parts, unacceptable.

Those journalists who point an accusing finger at Caruana Galizia have to ask themselves, though, whether their silence is also open to the accusation that by looking the other way they are guilty of unethical behaviour.

It is now up to Caruana Galizia to prove that what she is saying is true.

If she succeeds, the magistrate will have to consider her position. Scerri Herrera, as is her right, has asked the police to investigate the matter.

However, it is not the standard adopted in criminal investigation that would eventually clear or condemn her.

In a separate case, former Police Commissioner George Grech was cleared of criminal guilt. Nonetheless, he had to resign because what was said in open court brought his office in disrepute if not ridicule.

The code of ethics, more than criminal law, should be the guiding light.

Failing that, the magistrate’s case should be reviewed by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which should be responsible for such scrutiny.

But the commission has not proved itself to be an effective and efficient mechanism.

On one occasion, it had found enough evidence for a member of the bench to be impeached. However, the opposition thwarted the proceedings. The commission subsequently found two members of the bench guilty of infringing their code of ethics. Nothing happened.

If the organs responsible to put citizens minds at rest about the conduct of the judiciary are ineffective, the media have a most onerous and important role to perform.

Silence is definitely not always golden.