It is commonly understood that when a politician suspends himself from public duty because they are facing a criminal charge or are under investigation, they do so because there is a suspicion that that they could be found guilty of an offense that warrants resignation.

And in such cases when that suspicion is proven correct, it is also commonly understood that that politician resigns from the position altogether.

There is, however, nothing common in the case of Victoria mayor Samuel Azzopardi.  The mayor, when charged with driving under the influence, undoubtedly did the right thing and suspended himself from the Nationalist Party and resigned his position of mayor – presumably until the courts exonerated him of the charges he had been facing.

But when the courts this week found him guilty of driving under the influence and of refusing a breathalyser test, the Nationalist Party, unbelievably, revoked his suspension from the party and re-nominated him to the post of mayor.

In a somewhat strange judgement, the courts that found him guilty noted upon sentencing that the incident should not detract from his political, cultural and social work.  The PN used that remark and, it seems, that remark alone, to justify the Azzopardi’s reinstatement.

This is strange behaviour to say the least from the PN, which markets itself as the champion of good governance and political accountability.  It seems that in this case the PN has made it the bench’s prerogative to decide on its own levels of accountability and governance.

And in announcing Azzopardi’s reinstatement, on the sole strength of that comment from the bench, the PN lauded the case as a “clear example of how people in public positions should behave, and of how a political should lead by example”.

That statement is half-correct.  Yes, Azzopardi did well to have suspended himself from the party and resigned from his mayorship – that much is true.  But, on the other hand, there is nothing about the PN’s post-sentence reaction that shows how a political party should lead by example.

Azzopardi was, after all, found guilty of a criminal offense and one, no less, that claims innocent lives far too often.  Driving under the influence is an incredibly irresponsible act and it is one that puts the lives of men, women and children in danger.  The evidence of this is, sadly, seen year-in, year-out.  Not only that, he was also found guilty of refusing orders from officers of the law to submit himself to a breathalyser test.

Is this the kind of example that the PN is seeking to give the people?  We think not, but it is, nevertheless, the example that has been given in this case.  While it is true that everyone deserves a second chance, there are no second chances for those unfortunate souls whose lives have been taken by drunk drivers.

But in reaching its decision to exonerate Azzopardi of his misdeeds, the PN latched onto the court’s observation that his political work should not hindered as a result of his actions that night back in April when he decided to get behind the wheel despite the fact that he was inebriated.

With all due respect to the courts, the political repercussions of Azzopardi’s actions should be decided by the party of which Azzopardi forms part, and not the courts. 

It is difficult to understand how the PN, which has come down hard on its own people when it comes to accusations of corruption – such as in the cases of Giovanna Debono, Joe Cassar, Ninu Zammit and Michael Falzon – how it has failed to come down just as hard in the case of Azzopardi, whose actions that night held the potential to claim lives.

The party’s decision in this case has dampened the effect of its otherwise uncompromising stance of late when it comes to good governance.   While Azzopardi need not be hung, drawn and quartered in it-Tokk Square, he should have been made to face the political consequences for his serious error in judgement, no matter how intoxicated he was when he made it.  At the very least, his mayorship should have been permanently rescinded until the next local council elections so as to let the electorate decide on his suitability to lead Gozo‘s capital city.

The PN got it all wrong this time around and in the process it has set a terribly negative example, almost as bad an example as the mayor did when he chose to drive drunk.