The report of the ad hoc delegation of the Committee of Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament states, inter alia, “Persons perceived to be implicated in serious acts of corruption and money-laundering, as a result of Panama Papers revelations and FIAU reports, should not be kept in public office and must be swiftly and formally investigated and brought to justice. Keeping them in office affects the credibility of the Government, fuels the perception of impunity and may result in further damage to State interests by enabling the continuation of criminal activity.”

The report observes, for example, that none of the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit reports on Maltese politically exposed people were investigated by the Police, notwithstanding the fact that these reports had been forwarded to them “for any action the Police may consider appropriate”. 

The fact that no such investigation was carried out drives home the clear, unequivocal message that for the police, PEPs are not subject to the law like any other people.

The observations and conclusions of the delegation in its 36-page report are certainly not edifying. The common thread running through the different pages of the report is that in Malta there are more masters of the law than servants.

The remarks are not far off the mark. The report repeatedly emphasises the point that the law should be observed in both letter and spirit.

The institutions in Malta are very weak. They are weak by design, in other words they are designed specifically to genuflect when confronted by crude political power. This is reflected in both the type of appointees as well as in the actual set-up of the institutions which are supposedly there to protect us.

This is not something for which the Labour government only is to blame – the tendency to close an eye on misdeeds perpetrated by supporters or main actors of the current administration has a long history behind it. It has admittedly become worse, much worse, under the current administration but the groundwork had been laid far earlier, in other times, which some people today pretend to forget about.

This is why, for instance, this situation is not something that can be corrected by a change of government, unless the new government commits itself, and then implements, a drastic reversal of the situation. But in a country where the dice is loaded against the existence of more than two political parties and where the two parties alternate in power and where every single vote counts, thus making an election a race for power where the winner takes all, all the dices are loaded against a drastic reversal of the perpetuating situation and against a real observance of the rule of law.

Both parties speak of reforming the Constitution but no real steps have been taken. And so far, no one has come up with a real solution that commits the party when in government to implement a real and concrete rule of law.

It is not a question, as is sometimes said, of removing eg the Commissioner of Police and/or the Attorney General, though both have their faults and mistakes. Their main fault is that they are too subject to the dictates and wider interests of the party in government, as were to a greater or lesser extent, their predecessors. And no party, neither the one in government nor the one in Opposition, is ready to shed this power.

As long as the rules and workings of democracy are turned and condensed into a race to the top, no progress in this respect can be made. It will only be when there is a groundswell in favour of the working of a real rule of law when an agreement in this sense can be expected. There is as yet no agreement on either side for this to happen. A commitment on just one side is just a demand that this one side wins the election. And past experience tells us the winning side then finds a hundred reasons not to implement what it had previously promised.