The situation is desperate.
Thousands of people have taken to the streets, taking part in several activities organized by civil society over the past two weeks, demanding justice and a return to the rule of law, but our government says that the rule of law is alive and healthy.
A journalist is blown up in the course of her duties, raising serious questions about the protection that was not afforded to her, but our government dismisses the lack of faith by the public in the police force and acts as if it is business as usual.
The police commissioner and the attorney general refuse to take action against senior government officials, despite the existence of damning FIAU reports, which say there is reasonable suspicion of money laundering and other crimes, and the Prime Minister says the institutions are working fine.
Parliament finally meets to discuss calls for constitutional reform, and demands by the Civil Society Network for the resignation of Police Commissioner Lawrence Cutajar and Attorney General Peter Grech, but Labour MPs tell us that the PL has a mandate to govern and, as a party with a seven-seat majority, it can pretty much do as it wants.
The situation is truly desperate. What is the use of discussing constitutional reform if we do not first admit that there is a need for such a reform? How can the country strengthen the institutions, whose power has been systematically eroded, if the government refuses to even acknowledge that there is a problem with them?
Monday’s Parliamentary debate was as abysmal as they can come. Instead of having a serious discussion about the genuine concerns of people; why they feel that the police force cannot be trusted, why they feel that the AG should be deposed and why they feel that the courts have been turned into a political party club, MPs engaged in their usual mudslinging and insult hurling.
The Prime Minister insisted that there is no reason for the resignation of the police chief and the AG. We beg to differ. There are several thousand reasons marching on the streets every Sunday.
Why is the government intent on keeping these people, who lost the faith of the public many months ago, in their place? Doing so will only strengthen the impression that the government wants them there because it needs them there – because only in this way can it ensure that the wrongdoings of some within its ranks are not investigated.
People will only strengthen their beliefs that the government is only doing the opposite of what they are demanding – that instead of doing justice and upholding the rule of law it is using the institutions to its own political advantage and protecting those who deserve to be prosecuted.
Muscat tried to explain that the AG can only be removed by a two-thirds majority, effectively by impeachment, and that there has to be clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Is the AG’s lack of action on the reports by the FIAU, an entity he chairs, not clear enough? All that Parliament needs to remove the AG is some courage and goodwill. But it seems that removing the AG is not in the best interests of the ruling party.
And as for the Police Commissioner, the government can just sack him on the spot. No two-thirds majority is needed. So why doesn’t the government just fire him? Why keep a commissioner that has been blasted and derided like no one before him, who is dragging the good name of the police force down into the mud with him? This administration fired other commissioners over issues that look trivial next to Cutajar’s ineptness and inaction in the face of clear evidence. So why is he still there? What stronger excuse does the government need to sack him?