Much has been said about magisterial inquiries in the past months, particularly within the context of the Jean Paul Sofia case – and indeed there is much to be said about the magisterial inquiry in and of itself as a tool for justice.

A magisterial inquiry is a wide-reaching investigation into a matter where the alleged offence carries more than a three-year jail term and the evidence at hand requires immediate preservation.  When such a possible offence happens, then an inquiry is launched automatically. 

This means that there can be a magisterial inquiry into an array of possible offences – we hear and report when they are appointed in cases such as traffic deaths, or even accidents where a person suffers life-threatening injuries, but there are plenty of other reasons as to why a magisterial inquiry can be appointed.

The magistrate however cannot start an inquiry of their own accord.  In cases where an inquiry is not automatically appointed, the magistrate must be requested to open an inquiry by the police; by a court – as we saw recently when Magistrate Elaine Rizzo ordered  a magisterial inquiry be launched into accusations of serious crimes involving persons connected to No Deposit Cars Ltd; or by a private citizen – as former PN leader Simon Busuttil had done by presenting evidence which he said proved Keith Schembri had taken kickbacks from the government’s golden passports scheme.

Now the crux of this editorial is what happens when a magisterial inquiry is concluded.  When the magistrate finishes their investigation, they compile the conclusions with transcripts of the testimonies of the experts they’d have appointed together with, in some cases, recommendations into a document known as the proces verbal.

This is then sent to the Attorney General, and if the magistrate is recommending that the police take action against someone, the AG will send it to the police.  The AG can also choose to send the file back to the magistrate for further investigation.

Magisterial inquiries are always held in secret and behind closed doors.  The findings can be divulged following a request made to the Attorney General for a copy of the conclusions, but this is exclusively at the discretion of the AG.

A facet of this is that the family of the victim of whatever is being investigated is more often than not, not kept in the loop of what is happening in the investigation.

This was amply seen in the case of Jean Paul Sofia, where his parents were kept in total darkness as to even whether anybody would face justice for Sofia’s death – but there are plenty of other cases which are not as high profile but which have left heartbreak and suffering for families all the same who are still today without any closure.

The case of the death of the popular doctor Mario Rizzo Naudi, which was detailed in a story in yesterday’s The Malta Independent on Sunday, is one of no doubt many examples.  The story details how Rizzo Naudi died after a fall in hospital, and how a magisterial inquiry was appointed, subsequently concluded, but the magistrate in question then decided to withhold the conclusions from the family.

It is a situation that has led the late doctor’s family to experience undue stress, uncertainty, and has left Mario’s death as something of an open wound.

Like them, there are many others.

It is in this context that a statement by Prime Minister Robert Abela during an interview in the midst of the Sofia saga where he said that the government is considering ways to improve magisterial inquiries by giving the victim or their relatives a right to at least be kept informed of proceedings is to be welcomed.

One hopes that these reforms will be carried forward from words in an interview to being done on paper and implemented – and that if they are implemented, they are also implemented to cover retroactive cases so that the families who are still in the dark, can be shown some light.