The current Labour v 3.0 may be an upgrade over its predecessor of the 1970s and 80s when it comes to presentation, but if physical high-handedness might be a no-no for the government these days, it’s highly unlikely that this is because of moral scruples.

Scenes of policemen with their faces hidden behind visors and no identification on their uniforms, firing live rounds into the crowds (as happened in Rabat in 1987), uploaded on YouTube and doing the rounds on Facebook, would play out differently in 2013. But Labour’s belief that the police are a legitimate tool to use to further its partisan interests is unshaken. And almost immediately it was in office, Labour set out to put that belief into practice.

Making the Police Force a political extension of the government

After a torrent of transfers which, by no stretch of the imagination, could be linked to an improved working of the force, the government announced that the post of Commissioner of Police had been vacated and that it was filling it by calling back to the force one of its former members. This was the cause of some discomfort and criticism, which increased when the name of Peter Paul Zammit – who, after leaving the Force, had practiced with the legal firm of former Labour Party president Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi – was announced.

Labour’s reaction to criticism was in its predictable and tired practice of finding precedents. It referred to the fact that, in the past, ex-members of the force had been reinstated. Which is only a half-truth, because nobody has ever been reinstated to fill the top position. And for good reason. As one minister very accurately put it to justify his pushing of a loyalist to Mepa’s top post, a political appointee at the top spot of a Government organisation becomes the “reference point” to the political powers-that-be, gives the organisation “a certain direction” and can be “instructed” as to “what needs to be done”.

Faithfully serving political masters

Indebted as he is, after only a few weeks in office Peter Paul Zammit found himself in a position where he could not say “no” to the request to use his law-enforcers for catering services at an event hosted by his political master. Zammit and his men were made to look like fools and his Minister’s praise – for his catering skills – made him look more as if he was on his way to a Michelin star than show him deserving of his new role as the country’s top policeman.

The opportunity to see whether Zammit was up to the role came soon enough with a hold-up in Birkirkara and the subsequent investigation. Unquestioningly relying on a tip-off from an informer, and ignoring the fact that his physical appearance did not match the descriptions of eyewitnesses, the CID arraigned Darryl Luke Borg. Curiously, the prosecution successfully argued against Borg being granted bail, despite the fact that he is following a drug rehabilitation course in Mount Carmel Hospital.

Doing the right thing – and being made a scapegoat for it

Meanwhile, Inspector Elton Taliana, who is assigned to Birkirkara, received another tip-off which led him to the real culprit. The inspector proceeded to an arrest and interrogation, which led to the suspect’s admission of guilt. The officer presented his suspect in front of a magistrate less than an hour after the interrogation and, even then, until he repeated it in court, the accused could have withdrawn his admission. It was only after the accused re-affirmed his guilt in court that the case could be considered closed. Following this, Inspector Taliana duly informed the court – which was the legally-sanctioned way to set the ball rolling for Darryl Luke Borg’s release.

What a fine piece of policing, you might think. But not for the Labour government. Seeking to find a scapegoat for the ultimate PR mess, for some strange reason the government ignored the CID’s role in putting an innocent man behind bars and instead rounded on Taliana. The Police Board, safely populated with people connected to the Labour Party and the National Security Minister, was asked to investigate.

The Board’s report makes for interesting reading. It glosses over the shoddy investigation that led to an innocent man’s incarceration with a “there will always be cases where individuals will be innocently suspected and arraigned”. It goes on to say that, in cases like these, one can only hope that “the judge’s due care (ghaqal) would lead to acquittal” – as if the police are not equally expected to practice ghaqal in their investigations.

This serves as only a slight detour from picking on the officer and subjecting his actions to minute-by-minute analysis while ignoring the crucial point that the culprit was innocent until admitting his guilt in court. The report is wrapped up with a recommendation, made outside the Board’s terms of reference, for the Commissioner to take disciplinary action against Inspector Taliana.

Leaving no stone unturned

Meanwhile, extracts from highly confidential reports accessible only to the police, have mysteriously begun appearing in government-friendly newspapers. The reports were from some years back, totally unrelated to the Birkirkara hold-up and the following investigation and intended only to tarnish Inspector Taliana and his credibility. They do little more than reproduce claims made by police informants. Tip-offs provided by informants are important in the work of the police, but that is not to say they are invariably true and factual. Relying on an informant’s tip-off was what led to the CID’s wrongful indictment of Darryl Luke Borg and it is on another such informant’s tip-off that Taliana’s “trial by media” is based.

Taliana’s case will be heard by a Home Affairs and National Security Ministry disciplinary board. There, of course, he is guaranteed the fairness and impartiality for which such kangaroo courts are generally known. His boss has taken the findings of the board further by proposing suspension and possible criminal proceedings. While he’s at it, why not consider a dismissal as well?

We are truly back to the ways of governing that erode freedom and the rule of law. I would have hoped that 25 years would have provided a sufficient lesson to us all. If it has, it is to those responsible for the wrongdoing under past Labour governments, in learning how to make their unchanged attitudes appear normal and making them mainstream.