When an epidemic is spreading fast, it is natural for people to question whether the protective systems being adopted are robust enough. One must take care not to let such questions become too strident... in the sense that they could trigger panic.

Prime Minister Abela has been doing well to keep recommending that everybody remains prudent and vigilant, even as he explains that ongoing measures being rolled out to contain the corona virus at any given time, are reasonable and “proportionate”. It is always possible to criticize what has been done, as well as to claim that more could have been attempted.

Actually, I am one of those who believe that the issue is being handled well.

Probably though, the problem is that the corona virus story will get worse before it gets any better. The protective system we have, has been built on good, solid lines. So I think we should be confident that even when a more acute phase opens, we will still be able to keep it in check.

What will remain crucial is a strong and clear information campaign targeted to all sectors of society.

***

INSTEAD OF STRASBOURG

This month’s meeting of the European Parliament’s plenary was to be held in Brussels, not Strasbourg. This put some minds at rest for it had been noted that the chances of getting infected in France were increasing.

Even so, the fact remained that some 700 members of the Parliament were arriving from all corners of Europe to congregate in the plenary. An infection of one sort or another could quite easily infiltrate the assembly. In Brussels just as much as in Strasbourg, it could quite easily ride on MEPs attending the plenary to be later carried across the continent.

And the decision was changed again, just before the plenary kicked off; it now became a one-day meeting during which no votes would be taken.

The leadership of the EP hardly gave evidence in all this of wisdom and forethought.

***

DELAYS IN COURT

A criticism frequently heard, even outside the country, about the administration of justice in Malta, emphasizes the delays in getting courts to judge cases. If you go to court to get redress over some wrong done to you, it’s like you’re transfering the problem to never-never land. And indeed, many instances are on record of people having been given satisfaction when they’re dead.

I do not believe that every time that a court case goes on and on, this happens for no really serious reason. For example, a judge decided last month to conclude next September regarding a case where all witnesses had been heard. I was surprised that judgement was going to take so long.

Yet the judge is wellknown for the efficiency with which he manages the court cases assigned to him. There must have been weighty reasons for the “delay”.

Perhaps it makes sense when such situations arise, for the court to explain why it chose to adjourn to a given date rather than another which is nearer. At least there would a greater transparency about how courts operate and delays in the administration of justice would perhaps be considered as more acceptable.

12 March 2020