It’s not up to the Standards Commissioner to rule whether former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat should continue to hold a diplomatic passport.

That is, in a nutshell, what the commissioner, former chief justice Joseph Azzopardi, decided following a complaint filed by independent candidate Arnold Cassola.

Cassola, like many of us, contended that the diplomatic passport that Muscat was given soon after his disgraceful exit from Castille should be withdrawn after the recent developments in court. For those who need to be reminded, Muscat is accused of criminal wrongdoing following the conclusion of a magisterial inquiry into the now rescinded hospitals’ deal, which had seen three public hospitals passed on to be administered by first Vitals and later Steward.

A court has found that enough prima facie evidence exists for Muscat – and a host of others, including the other two members of the famous triumvirate (Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri) – to stand trial. Muscat had resigned in January 2020 after his office’s links to the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

In spite of this, Muscat continues to hold a diplomatic passport which gives him extra privileges when he travels abroad, for whatever reason. The passport was just one of the many perks that he was granted by his successor Robert Abela as part of his (Muscat’s) termination package – others include an office in Sa Maison and the use of a car with a driver, the use of a second car, two telephone landlines and internet connection, and a mobile phone. Not to mention the €120,000 severance pay. Not bad for someone who resigned in disgrace.

In his ruling, the Standards Commissioner said that since Muscat is no longer an MP, it is up to the Cabinet to decide whether he should continue to hold a diplomatic passport. Of course, the Cabinet has no intention to tell Muscat to hand it back. It would never dare to go against its former chief. And so Muscat will continue to use it, with all its benefits, each time he sets foot out of the country. The court has ruled that he and the other accused can still travel while facing the charges.

This situation makes it clear that the system related to the severance packages given to prime ministers and ministers needs to change. The argument is made that when a Cabinet member loses the job he or she needs time to adjust. But the question that needs to be asked is whether someone like Muscat should continue to benefit from perks in spite of facing such serious charges related to the time he was in office.

Let us remember that a diplomatic passport means, among other things, legal immunity from lawsuit or prosecution and exemption from certain airport protocols like bag searching. Aside from this, taxpayers have coughed up roughly a two-year Prime Minister’s salary to Muscat and continue to pay thousands of euros each month for the items listed above.

Again, we ask, should someone accused of the crimes Muscat is facing be afforded these luxuries at the people’s expense?