The government has appointed the retired judge Albert Manche to conduct an independent inquiry into the events leading up to the death of Nicholas Azzopardi. This is concurrent with the standard magisterial inquiry, which takes place each time there is a serious crime or when foul play is suspected, even if there is no death involved. The two inquiries are separate, have a distinct identity, and serve different purposes.
The use of the term ‘independent inquiry’ is rather unfortunate. The magisterial inquiry is independent too. The purpose of both inquiries is to sort out the facts from the lies, the exaggerations, the half-truths and the figments of imagination. For example, it is being suggested in some quarters that the man’s death in hospital, when he had been talking and watching television just a short while before, is mysterious. Yet medical sources say that after his physical trauma the risk of an embolism was high. The suggestion that Nicholas Azzopardi was killed by those who didn’t wish him to speak may seem far-fetched (but still has to be investigated). The suggestion that he was not given the appropriate preventive treatment for an embolism or thrombus is not far-fetched. This means that a third inquiry – an internal inquiry at the State hospital – is essential.
The government’s independent inquiry is being conducted within the context and scope of the government’s administrative responsibility for the police force. Put simply, the government needs to find out what went wrong in this department for which it is wholly responsible. It needs to know what controls must be put in place to avoid the same thing happening again, whether it was a beating, an escape attempt, or something else. The purpose of this inquiry is not to find out whether somebody should be prosecuted or not. Judge Manche will report directly to the government with his findings, and the government, because of the separation of powers which so few people seem to understand, is in no position to order that X or Y should be prosecuted.
These are Judge Manche’s terms of reference in the independent inquiry: to examine the behaviour of the police towards Nicholas Azzopardi, from the moment he was called in for questioning to his death in hospital; to find out whether there was any dereliction of duty or abuse of power by the police; to report on any ancillary matters related to the forgoing; and, to make recommendations based on his conclusions.
The magisterial inquiry is something else altogether. The magistrate’s terms of reference are to report on the situation so that the attorney-general has all the facts to hand when deciding whether to prosecute somebody or not. It is a routine exercise, and not an extraordinary one, despite the extraordinary nature of the case. There are magisterial inquiries all the time. When our house was set on fire, for example, there was a magisterial inquiry. When somebody is knocked down and badly injured in a hit-and-run crash, there is a magisterial inquiry. When that poor woman fell into a well in her yard and died a couple of weeks ago, there was a magisterial inquiry. Those are just some examples.
The magistrate who heads this inquiry appoints experts to assist him or her, and then writes a report which is submitted not to the government, but to the attorney-general. The attorney-general then decides on the appropriate course of action. It is the attorney-general, and not the government, who will decide whether to prosecute anyone in this case or not. The prime minister, the minister of justice, nor even the police commissioner can tell him what to do. That’s the separation of powers.
The Nicholas Azzopardi case has permutations which demand more than the usual magisterial inquiry. The people who are responsible for the police need to know what to do about the situation. To draw a simple comparison, if something goes wrong in a factory or another place of work and a customer dies in extraordinary circumstances, the owners of the company – if they have their heads screwed on right – don’t say “Oh, we’ll wait for the outcome of the magisterial inquiry, and then we’ll decide what to do.” No. They’ll set up their own internal inquiry to see where they went wrong and how to avoid it happening again, because the motivation and purpose of the magisterial inquiry are different from their own motivation and purpose.
Despite these clear differences, the Chamber of Advocates has put a question mark over the proceedings, wondering out loud why the government has set up an independent inquiry. The chamber is objecting, apparently, because of the risk that the findings of the government’s independent inquiry may be different to those of the magisterial inquiry.
Try as I might, I fail to follow this train of thought. What the Chamber of Advocates appears to be saying is that the government shouldn’t hold its own inquiry because it might discover things that the magisterial inquiry failed to find out, or vice versa. How is this problematic? Granted, it would be a public relations problem for the people involved if the two inquiries drew different conclusions or reported different facts, but it is certainly not a public interest problem for the people out here.
However, I try to interpret what the chamber said, I keep coming back to the words that ignorance is bliss. Even though the inquiries have purposes that are entirely different, they still act as a control on each other – or rather, as a control on the people who will be questioned. You can lie and cover up to one inquiry, but it’s a whole lot more difficult to carry your story through two different inquiries. The Chamber of Advocates doesn’t like this. But then the Chamber of Advocates has never liked any boats to be rocked, even if rocking them is in the public interest.
The chamber might not be too thrilled to discover that its views are shared by none other than Malta’s favourite former police superintendent. Anglu Farrugia, who continues to masquerade as Labour’s spokesman for justice, has told the government that it is “irresponsible” for setting up an independent inquiry.
Irresponsible? The Minister of Justice would have been irresponsible if he had washed his hands of the matter and shoved the ball into the Magistrate’s court. I’m sorry about those mixed metaphors, but sometimes they come in handy, especially when talking about people with mixed thinking, like Anglu Farrugia.
I’m tempted to say that Dr Farrugia is a fine one to be talking about irresponsibility, but I don’t really want to drag up his history in the police force again. So instead I’ll refer to recent history and his Pink Panther attempts at hunting down the secret agents who bought the votes of drug-addled Labour supporters for e70, putting an illegitimate government into power.
Anglu Farrugia has asked the Minister of Justice to explain himself. I can hear Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici sighing all the way from where I am sitting. That’s the trouble with people like Dr Farrugia. They don’t seem to understand that the most common reaction they provoke is a deep sigh of exasperation. They see themselves as campaigners for right and reason, when really they are no more than exasperating circus acts.
Dr Farrugia is a lawyer. He is a politician. He is the shadow spokesman for justice. He was a senior police officer for many years. He is perfectly qualified and equipped to understand the differences between the nature and purpose of the two separate inquiries. But he is unable to do so. And yet I, with none of that background, can. This is not because I am Stephen Hawking. It’s because Anglu Farrugia – well, let’s not go into any great detail here. All you need to do is visit his website, www.anglufarrugia.com, and you’ll see what I mean. Don’t forget to check out the photo-gallery. It will make your Sunday.