I was originally going to comment on the Prime Minister’s announcement on 1 March of decriminalizing prostitution and how that was going to affect police work, but that will have to wait. The second reading of the Bill, amending the Police Act, is coming to a close tomorrow and I need to highlight a few and final points on the grilling process that hasn’t been addressed.

First things first: anyone who understands police culture knows that if you want to insult a cop, interrogate him. What’s so insulting about that? Reasonable suspicion. A cop only interrogates upon having such a suspicion, based on evidence. You don’t ask questions unless you have proof backing this, it’s simple mathematics. So if the Prime Minister decides that the new police chief needs to be grilled, what is that saying? “You’re under suspicion, I don’t trust you.” We’ve already heard the PM say earlier on this week that he’ll be keeping tabs on police officers to do their duty and hurry up investigations wherever buildings collapsed negligently. We’ve arrived to that point. “Grilling” is not exactly a Freudian slip, is it?

The worst part of the grilling is that at most, the suspect is interrogated by two officers. Case law from the 1980s, excesses of policing, have established this rule: so how would a decent cop feel to have a board of seven interrogators? Changing that dynamic is akin to moving the goalpost after the game has started.

Or maybe it’s not procedural law that is being applied here after all, but the Law of Karma, coming back to bite the police institution for its historic misdemeanours. That’s closer to playing God than to playing Caesar.

And which Human Resource manager would organise an interview with such a large panel without realizing how intimidating that can be for the prospective employee? What would it say about the organisation? Incidentally, one of the worst occasions when Parliament grilled a suspect was the breach of privilege case involving the Mhux fl-Interess tal-Poplu editor, Mr Demicoli. Again, a throwback to the Lorry Sant days. Hasn’t Parliament learnt its lessons? Continuity, by another name. 

The idea of broadcasting the grilling is nothing less than voyeurism by the public. Please do not call it democratic, it’s just another public spectacle of an otherwise private moment in a person’s career progress. Is this new standard a one-off or is it going to be applied across the board to lawyers appointed to the bench, for example?

Should it be a standard that merits emulation? I don’t think so. It’s outright degrading, especially since the first-placed can still be made to walk the plank by PM himself. How will the police trust the PM after that? How is it going to hurt the whole concept of merit in the long run?

And how will the PM congratulate the anointed one: “Well done”?

It sounds plausible on paper to make the police institution answerable to the House of Representatives, as if it doesn’t have enough checks, balances and monitors in the statute books. It would make more sense instead to call in the police chief to answer for something that would require a public explanation, like the delays in investigations of a certain case, a newspaper report uncovering police malfeasance and misfeasance or the lowering of public trust levels. A parallel example is the inquiry into the Daphne investigation, presided by three judges. Interesting how the witness can ask to be heard behind closed doors – no public spectacle there, even if it’s being held in the public interest.

I keep wondering why the police unions aren’t talking about this, as if the top brass don’t need to be spoken for. It will certainly affect union negotiations because toxicity gets filtered down the line instead of being dealt with properly. Think of the bad anger management vignette: the boy gets shouted at, who then shout at the dog, the dog attacks the cat, and so on. Imagine if the police chief had to pass through such a hassle to get selected and is then faced by union grievances – what would be the standard response? “Is that what you’re clamouring about? Are you a man or a mouse? Small price to pay, I’ve had to go through much worse to get here.” Been there; heard it all before.

Go back to the drawing board Prime Minister, it just doesn’t tally. You’re creating a cumbersome mechanism that is ultimately undemocratic and humiliating to the police culture − surely not the legacy you want to be remembered for.

Dr Abela, it’s also clear that you’re not pleased with the police institution that you have inherited. But please address the elephant in the room; no more “semantic sponges” either, to use an academic term describing unclear orders given to police officers. To speak about continuity and at the same time advocate a clear break from the recent past because there’s a sabot in the works, is confusing. The police need you to tell them what your vision for policing is and be clear about the consequences of bad policing. Please don’t delay whatever you have to tell them; for starters, it would help weed out the opportunist and the snake-charmer who are aiming to be the next chief.

Dr Mary Muscat is an academic and former Police Inspector