PL Deputy Leader for Party Affairs Alex Agius Saliba said he believes that the allegations against former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat "will collapse".

Muscat and three former ministers are in court facing criminal charges tied to a deal the government had struck with a private company for the running of three public hospitals. The hospitals deal had been annulled by the court in judgements that had mentioned fraud and collusion. A magisterial inquiry into the deal resulted in the aforementioned criminal charges being filed in court.

In an interview with the Malta Independent on Sunday, Agius Saliba said that he is not going to criticise the court's judgement or attack a magistrate, "but when you look at the way things were done, for me the most scandalous thing..." was the conclusion of the inquiry's proximity to the EP and local council elections. "Did this cost the PL votes? There were even traditional PL supporters who, I won't say didn't vote Labour, but got confused when they began hearing these allegations".

The PL Deputy Leader said that a magistrate has a right to appoint experts, "but for us to have some transparency in terms of how things are done is important."

€11 million was spent "on a report on which this case is completely based," Agius Saliba said, adding that "the most basic thing" is for someone who presents a document to testify and take ownership of it.

"This is what the people are saying, and I will not add to the rhetoric, but at the end of the day it is not only the experts appointed by the magistrate (who are) being attacked. Unfortunately ... the shadow that is being cast onto the courts is that they are not capable of doing their job." 

There are political ramifications linked to this. "This narrative that the PN tried to build around the hospitals case, in the short-term, especially with regard to the direct attacks on former PM Joseph Muscat and others, will have a strong boomerang effect if the case, as it seems to be heading, collapses, as today nobody wants to take ownership of the most important document that the case can move on."

Told he is talking as though he believes the case has already concluded, he said no, but added that the case revolves around this report. 

He said that the inquiring Magistrate had the right to appoint experts, and on the report prepared by experts decide what will happen. "The decision taken by the court was based on this report." He reiterated that the report is "orphaned".

"So how can I have faith and continue talking about this scandal, which the PN made its own and jumped on the bandwagon, making a whole campaign talking about," he continued.

This is why a reform to make the magisterial inquiry process more transparent was needed, he said, "not to leave this kind of lack of accountability in our judicial system, on which the lives of so many depend, continue."

Faced with a reminder that the court had already annulled the hospitals deal in judgements that mentioned fraud and collusion, he said: "Many times one of the biggest challenges this government had, especially at the beginning in 2013-2016 was that we had a very ambitious programme of reforms that we wanted to push forward in an expedited way, and we could have done a number of things and acted better. I never said this government or the PL was perfect, that we never made mistakes or that we could never have been better."

"But we cannot leave a situation where the lives of people are broken - and I am certain that all these allegations especially against Joseph Muscat in the future will collapse - where you end up putting people in that situation and end up waiting years for one to be able to safeguard their reputation. That is why the reforms are needed, for more transparency and accountability," he said.

Magisterial inquiry reform

A main argument used by the government to introduce the magisterial inquiry reform was to stop abuse. Agius Saliba said that there were many claims which were "proven to be lies" which came out over the Christmas period.

He mentioned the allegations regarding unexplained wealth that were made against Silvio Schembri and separately the allegations that had been made against Carmelo Abela years ago, saying that today the allegations fell through. "It is easy to throw mud and have a person spend three years fighting in court. But at the end of the day their reputation would be broken, the stories on the news would have been published. Many a time bad publicity moves quickly. When you have a story reporting that a libel case was won, it never makes as much noise as the original story (...) I am not against political accountability, but to use lies to break or jam the government's work with a lot of collateral damage is not the way I believe the majority of people want politics."

Former Nationalist MP "Jason Azzopardi decided he wanted to jam the government's work by requesting nine magisterial inquiries," Agius Saliba said. "There were ministers with two or three hanging around their neck. Do I have the right to, upon hearing hearsay from a bar, request a magisterial inquiry to investigate that person and promote it on the media through statuses and tweets and articles and end up building a narrative about that person, who then spends months trying to clear their name?"

"The PN in one breath is saying that we will remove the right for a private citizen to ask for a magisterial inquiry, and at the same time is saying that we are discouraging private citizens from requesting magisterial inquiries because they end up receiving fines when what they put forward cannot be proved. That is also a lie, but the PN must decide on its narrative."

He said that he has complete faith in the ability of the police force and the country's institutions to do their duty impartially and well. "Through the safeguards we have introduced for magisterial inquiries we will not remove anyone's right to file a request. The police will conduct their investigations, and today inquiries will be led by the criminal court, which elevates the importance of magisterial inquiries."

Faced with the statement that, regardless of the reform, a person could just file a request with the police for an investigation and speak about it, and that all the reform did was limit the ability for citizens to ask for a magisterial inquiry, he asked: "So the Magistrates' court should take cognition of a case of hearsay that was heard in a bar? So are we going to use and abuse the system? ... With the way the media developed today, which is good, you have fast news, blogs, direct opinions, the world changed. The magisterial inquiry reform was also an electoral pledge and was part of the electoral manifesto."

Electoral manifesto

Questioned about this as at the time it wasn't known that this was the kind of reform planned, he said: "the magisterial inquiry reform is part of the electoral programme as well. I believe that this reform will bring more transparency in the way things are done, in the way a request for an inquiry is made, the role of the police as the investigative arm to investigate these requests. If a person has the evidence, good intentions and asks for a magisterial inquiry, they don't have to worry about this reform, because as a private citizen you should have full trust in the police force that they are ready and capable to do their duty. At the end of the day we are placing our full trust in the police force when it comes to security in the country."

"The courts gave decisions that not always rung well, but I am not going to say that I don't have faith in the courts. This is one of the issues that is undermining the credibility of certain civil society groups. and we saw the fiasco they had in the protest against this law. It showed that the support towards this type of narrative is lacking. Why? Because if you truly believe in the institutions, the rule of law, you believe in them always, not only when it benefits you."

"To have coordinated and continuous attacks to create the perception that we have a collapse in the courts, the police force, the Attorney General, the State Advocate... how could none of them function? We need to be credible and I have full trust that this magisterial inquiry reform will work because I believe the right for private citizens will remain there, and because I have full trust in the police force, the police commissioner, the courts."

He referred to the criticism on the part of the reform which introduces consequences for frivolous complaints. The reform introduces a clause which states that if a suspected person was placed under examination unjustly on the basis of a report, information or complaint presented by reason of it having been either unfounded, frivolous, vexatious or abusive of the judicial process the Magistrate may decide to condemn the person who filed the report, information or complaint to pay the costs of the inquest, without prejudice to any other direction which the Magistrate may consider appropriate to give.

"In the criminal code there are many other instances where if a person gives false testimony or gives false information, then there will obviously be repercussions. What is wrong with that? If someone tries to profit from a magisterial inquiry procedure by putting forward false information, what is wrong with that person facing negative repercussions? If I have good intentions and want to use a magisterial inquiry to make things better you will have the same rights you have today," he said. "Why should you worry if there are all the safeguards and the only filter will be the police force, that will have the role it always had, to investigate, for the system not to be abused."

Standards Commissioner

Another issue which cropped up in the past days is related to the Standards Commissioner. In correspondence with the Standards Commissioner over a complaint that had been filed by Momentum Chairperson Arnold Cassola, Prime Minister Robert Abela indicated that he was mulling a reform in this area too if "frivolous complaints" and  "abuse" continued.

Asked whether he thinks this will erode the public's ability to hold politicians to account, Agius Saliba said it was the Labour Party that introduced the Standards in Public Life Act. "But why should we have a situation where a small group of people always try to profit from these initiatives, from this strengthening of the rule of law we introduced, to try and abuse the system?"

"Today when you put forward these kinds of accusations and read that a magisterial inquiry was launched, or that a request was made to the Standards Commissioner, it is a though it is a fact. If I were to say that someone was a thief, and that I filed a request to the Standards Commissioner to prove whether the allegation is true or not, out there it is as though the accusation put forward is a fact. Then it keeps being repeated in one activity after another, one blog after another, that the person is a thief, and then a year to two pass and the Commissioner or the adjudicator issues their report saying that there is nothing to the allegations and that there is no evidence to back the accusation."

Legal and administrative processes are a living process, he said. "We never said we want to remove the Standards Commissioner which we introduced."

"But I see nothing wrong," he said, with "having a procedure like for the magisterial inquiries and the reform we introduced, having safeguards to ensure that there isn't abuse."

Asked whether the government and the PL is saying that all complaints against them are frivolous, he said "not at all," adding that PL MPs have voted in favour of Standard Commissioner reports and recommendations. "It is not a situation where we attack the decisions taken by the Standards Commissioner."

He said that there are genuine people within the PN. "I use the term extreme faction or clique because I do not like putting everyone into the same boat as I know that there are people who are honest, valid and want a different type of politics than the kind of politics a few people want. That is why it is important to have more transparency in how things are done. Unfortunately, tweaks in the system need to be done when there are those who try and abuse the system."

Faced with the statement that it looks as though the government is saying that if one criticises them they are automatically in the wrong, he said: "I have not seen any reform for the Standards Commissioner, it was just a statement that was said. The only thing I will say is across the board, whether it is the Standards Commissioner, magisterial inquiries or other requests that can be made, if a reform does not remove any right for a private citizen but ensures that there would be safeguards not to break people through politically vindictive actions, as at the end of the day that is what we saw happening to a number of individuals, then I see nothing wrong. If there is a limitation on citizens' rights to achieve justice, I would be the first to comment."

Pressed on whether this is an attempt to weaken people's ability to ask for an investigation, he said no. "I do not believe so in any way, the right remained. If I did not have faith in the institutions, if I believed that the police were not capable of investigating or that the criminal court is not capable of doing its job then I would be sceptical about the reforms, but I have full faith in the country's institution both when they decide in favour of a person, entities or the government and also when they decide against. That is the justice we should all believe in." 

A second part of the interview will be carried tomorrow