Not in my name

Can someone explain to me by what authority the Civil Society Network (CSN) championed by the likes of Michael Brigulio, Andrew Borg Cardona and Manuel Delia are speaking in the name of Civil Society.

I am a law abiding member of civil society and did not authorise anyone of these guys to speak in my name.   The only bodies that sought my endorsement were the political parties at last general elections in June and the only body that can speak in my name and in the name of the vast majority of the electorate is the government led by Joseph Muscat.

Brigulio, Borg Cardona and Delia and their vanishing flock of followers have every right to protest and hold demonstrations but only in their name not in the name of civil society.  They have every right to continue making fools of themselves protesting that government is not upholding the rule of law when in fact they have been given all liberty and facilities to protest as they wish and themselves urge for total disrespect of the rule of law.

In using mob rule methods to demand resignation of senior executives in the Administration i.e. the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General, they are betraying the very cause they are supposedly fighting for.    The removal of the Police Commissioner is a decision which belongs solely to the Executive and if pressure has to be made on the Executive for such a step than it is only Parliament that can bring such pressure.   In case of the Attorney General his removal can only be taken for causes which are currently not obtainable and only with a 2/3rd parliamentary majority.

However the most laughable is the suggestion that their replacement has to be made by parliament with a 2/3rd majority.  Hell would have to freeze over before such a wide consensus can be reached and the proposal is meant only to render the country ungovernable without an Attorney General and without a Police Commissioner at this delicate time when we need to find out who murdered DCG and caused so much grief and disrespect to the family, to the profession of journalism and to the whole country.

History shows that Police Commissioners work at the pleasure of the government and they tend to come and go quite easily upon change of administration or even during the same legislature if they are judged to be under-performing.   Clearly we have had a series of underperforming Commissioners under this government in its 2013-2017 version.  Finally in the person of Lawrence Cutajar there seems to be stability in evolving the role of the police force to be of service to society.  Fair  criticism about the length of time police take to prosecute in cases where clear suspicion exists is more than reasonable.  However police do not trade in suspicion, they trade in evidence that can stand up in a court of law.   Prosecuting suspects without a reasonable degree of evidence will be clearly counter-productive and wasteful of resources.

However Attorneys General do not work at the pleasure of the government.  The Constitution gives them security of tenure similar to that of the judiciary.   We have had ample record of Attorneys General who were appointed by a party in government and then continued to serve when another party eventually acceded to  government.   The most notable is probably Dr Edgar Mizzi appointed by Borg Oliver and served well and for long under Mintoff.

I have been searching for a reason why all this animosity towards Dr Peter Grech, Attorney General, who was appointed by a PN government and has continued in position under a PL government.  As the saying goes 'Malta zghira u n-nies maghrufa'.   Dr Grech until a few months back was extremely respected by one and all whatever the political colour or the profession.   Not a single murmur, complaint or negative speculation about his integrity was ever vented.   He is a true professional with a highly dedicated sense of service.  

What on earth has brought this change of attitude against Dr Grech without even bothering to explain clearly on what grounds he is being demanded to resign or get fired?

There is no logical answer to this question and to attempt some possible answer one would have to enter into the realm of speculation.  But in the absence of logic,  speculation becomes a second best alternative especially if can be corroborated by certain unconnected events and if it respects some elements of logic.

My elements of logic rests on the following:

• The removal of Dr Peter Grech must serve some particular cause which is still not evident.
• The said cause must have a substantial monetary value
• Dr Peter Grech is considered as a stumbling block for achieving the much aspired prize.

I will continue searching to find the true reason for the astonishing change of attitude towards Dr Peter Grech.  I may have an idea about a particular case that ticks all these boxes.