Cheeky and Offensive

The Malta Independent



The government has not only eaten the cake of our moral values but it wants to make us believe that the cake is still intact.` This is cheeky.

The friendly media, editorially, is taking it against Labour opposition for discussing the wider implication of what led society to harbour drug related corruption at the high level of its judicial corps. In so doing it is abdicating its role to defend moral values of society. This is offensive.

Government wants us to believe that the case that led to the impeachment motion of two judges and their eventual resignation was an isolated digression from the high moral ethics that are still practised throughout society. It maintains that we ought to be satisfied that our security systems effectively shielded society from such abuse by bringing the culprits to justice without fear or favour regarding their high offices. `Government wants us to believe that the case that led to the impeachment motion of two judges and their eventual resignation was an isolated digression from the high moral ethics that are still practised throughout society.`

Governments wants this case not only to serve as an effective diversion from its pathetic record on the administrative and economic fronts even during the summer, but also to claim merit for having effective checking systems over high office abuse.

It also expects the Opposition to join it pretending that the resignation of the two judges and criminal records brought against those involved in this earth shaking scandal, restores the state of complete normality to the democratic systems and institutions of the country. The friendly press hold it against Labour for daring to think otherwise.

Those of us who walk the streets know that in their large majority people suspect otherwise.` They suspect that the case is exceptional only in the fact that it was brought to the surface. This thanks to strong evidence put together on the personal initiative of a few investigating officers who worked secretly until they could present solid evidence making it impossible for the usual back scratching network of power-sharers to bury the case and continue regardless. `In any other civilised country a case like this would have brought in as a minimum the immediate resignation of the Minister of Justice`

At level zero people look back to other cases which in the past came to the surface involving drug related crime and reflect how the hard work and dedication of a few investigating officers was nullified, at the expense of society, by shady presidential pardons, eye-brow raising jury procedures and judgements, and easy escape from Malta of people who would have had something quite interesting to tell about the workings of the drug networks.

For those us who are not prepared to bury their head in the sand,` the current case which is now proceeding in its criminal dimensions after the judges bowed to public pressure to resign rather than face impeachment, is just a symptom of much else which has been going on under the surface eroding the moral values of society.

The opposition not only has a right to speak on such wider issues which give a background meaning to the particular case in point, but it has a duty to do so.` Rather than holding it against Labour for interpreting things in a context without in any way prejudicing the right of fair trial, the media should criticise and object to the evident attempts being made by people in high places to minimise the impact of this scandal and restore a false state of normality.

In any other civilised country a case like this would have brought in as a minimum the immediate resignation of the Minister of Justice and the reconvening of parliament to discuss with urgency the state of affairs of our judiciary systems with a motion of either no confidence brought by the opposition or a vote of confidence sought by the government. Failure to do so makes me wonder whether we can still rightly claim to be civilised.

Alfred Mifsud