In the same week that the government crossed the t's and dotted the i's of its magisterial inquiry reform, we came to learn that Prime Minister Robert Abela is considering amending the law related to investigations carried out by the Standards Commissioner into alleged ethical breaches made by his ministers.

Abela - and those who sit on the same side in Parliament, none of whom is capable of standing up to his authoritarian style - has made it next to impossible for the common citizen to request a magisterial inquiry, given that anyone trying needs to first go through the police with proof that is admissible in court. Risks that the complainant will have to fork out the expenses of the inquiry will also serve to discourage people from filing their request.

The amendments to the law were passed at break-neck speed through Parliament, with the President, like Pontius Pilate, choosing to wash her hands and indicate the Constitution as obliging her to sign what was approved in Parliament. Really and truly, she had another option - resign and take a stand against this blow to democracy.

The government voted in favour of the amendments in spite of the opposition that was mounted against it, not only from the Nationalist Party, but also from constituted bodies and legal experts. The law was drafted and pushed through all parliamentary stages within just three months, and all this without any public consultation. It was Robert Abela's way of showing that might is right.

The government, as professor of law Kevin Aquilina wrote in this newspaper last Sunday, was in a hurry to grant corrupt ministers immunity from criminal action. "A democratising element in the justice sector has been removed," the professor wrote.

The day after this shameful blow to the rule of law and accountability was approved in Parliament, news emerged of how Abela, confronted with a complaint submitted against him to the Standards Commissioner, threatened to amend the law related to this particular office to eliminate what, for the PM, are "frivolous" grievances.

Momentum Chairperson Arnold Cassola had asked the Standards Commissioner to investigate Abela for his statements about people embroiled in the driving test racket scandal. Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi found that no breach had been committed.

But Abela's reaction to the complaint smacks of pure totalitarianism, with the Prime Minister seeking to serve as judge and jury of any criticism that is levelled at the government. He told the commissioner that he is "seriously preoccupied" that the law governing the Standards Commission is being "consistently abused".

Abela then went on to threaten using his legislative power to change the law, strongly indicating that the intention would be to limit, or even eradicate, the possibility that anyone could file a complaint against him or his ministers. "I understand that if this abuse continues, the remedy is legislative," Abela said.

In his reply, the Standards Commissioner defended Cassola's right to complain, and that it is then up to him (the commissioner) to decide whether the complaint is frivolous or abusive. In other words, the commissioner was telling Abela not to interfere in his (the commissioner's) function.

Still, the fact remains that Abela is mulling the idea to amend the law in the same way he did on magisterial inquiries. Once again, the Prime Minister exposed himself as a defender of wrongdoing. As he did on magisterial inquiries, Abela is prepared to legislate to reduce, possibly eliminate, the opportunity that is granted by our laws for people to file complaints about alleged ethical breaches.

In a nutshell, Abela is seen to be attempting to weaken, possibly abolish, the office of the Standards Commissioner, set up by his predecessor Joseph Muscat. Rather than strengthening the office and giving it more powers as an independent institution, Abela wants to control its function.

For him, anything that is said against him and the government is "frivolous". He stopped citizens from having the possibility to request magisterial inquiries; now he wants to stop them from seeking investigations into ethical breaches.

Now that the magisterial inquiry amendments are in the bag, and that he has set his eyes also on the Standards Commissioner, it is easy to become concerned about what Abela's next step in his dismantling of the institutions is going to be.

There are other institutions that function as investigators. The Ombudsman, for example, deals with grievances involving the public sector. The National Audit Office is empowered to audit the accounts of all government departments and offices, and public authorities administering funds belonging directly or indirectly to the government.

Multiple complaints are received by these offices, and like magisterial inquiries and ethical breaches which are passed on to the Standards Commissioner, investigations carried out by the Ombudsman and the NAO have often embarrassed the government.

Is the Prime Minister planning to have a go at them too?