There is a general consensus that one should always be prudent when talking about court cases.  Politicians, given the attention that they garner from the media and the following that they have among the public, in particular must be careful about what they say about ongoing court cases, as their words may risk prejudicing procedures.

The most infamous such case dates back to 2002, when then Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami revealed to the press that Chief Justice Noel Arrigo and Judge Patrick Vella were being investigated by police over claims that they accepted thousands of Maltese liri in return for reducing a convicted man's prison sentence on appeal by four years.

Less than three weeks later, the lawyers for the two judges claimed that Fenech Adami had breached the accused's fundamental human right to a fair trial by kicking up a media frenzy around the case and by, with his words, make it seem that a crime had in fact been committed - even though the case was still sub-judice at the time.

The following year, the Constitutional Court found that Fenech Adami's words had indeed violated the judges' right to a fair trial based on the presumption of innocence.  The case ultimately continued and the two judges were found guilty and jailed - but the legal precedent had been set.

Fast forward 23 years, Prime Minister Robert Abela - who at times has, according to some critics, strayed a bit close to the line of prejudicing a court case but, factually, has yet to cross it - is in the crosshairs over his comments and decisions on the hospitals case.

This emerged after Abela re-appointed Ronald Mizzi to the role of Permanent Secretary, despite the fact that he remains indicted and is facing serious charges related to the hospitals deal.  Commenting on the decision, Abela said that he had reinstated Mizzi because he is "totally convinced" that he is innocent. "I have no doubt about the innocence of Ronald Mizzi," Abela told the media.

"When I saw the court process and read the inquiry report... I became totally convinced of his innocence," Abela said.

We are in an anomalous position where Abela is at risk of prejudicing the concept of a fair trial not to seemingly favour the prosecution - but to favour the accused. 

In doing so, Abela is contradicting even himself.  Almost exactly a year ago - on 14 May 2024 - Abela was asked in a press conference whether he believed that his predecessor Joseph Muscat is innocent of the charges he is facing in the same hospitals inquiry and he neglected to pass judgment.

He had said that it is "judgement that must be made by the Courts who will be hearing his case" and when asked for his personal opinion, he referred to the aforementioned Fenech Adami case.

"The worst thing I can do is comment on the merit of the case," Abela had said, adding that at the time all he had commented about was the procedure - ergo how the case had been handled by the inquiring magistrate - and not the court case itself.

Yet now, almost exactly 12 months later, Abela has done - as he himself described it - "the worst thing" he could do.  In expressing his belief that Ronald Mizzi is innocent, he has made a clear comment that - for him - the case has no merit.

What happened to the concept of prudence when speaking about an ongoing court procedure?

Make no mistake: Ronald Mizzi, Joseph Muscat, and everyone else accused in connection with the hospitals inquiry (and any other case, for all intents and purposes) are presumed innocent. 

But it is only a court which can make a judgment to confirm or negate that - and certainly not the Prime Minister or anybody else.