The ball in our court

Three months ago to the day, a bomb shattered the peaceful surroundings of Bidnija. The violent shatter did more than just shatter the peaceful surrounding the beautiful valley itself. It shattered the illusion that our country was a normal democracy with heated debates.

Three months ago to the day, the life of Daphne Caruana Galizia came to a horrid and violent end. In life Caruana Galizia never shied away from calling a spade the way she seed it; even if doing so made her enemies; very powerful enemies. Caruana Galizia never shied away from making her arguments in her own inimitable style; she never shied away from investigative journalism no matter how risky such journalism got.

Many had moments where they disagreed with what she wrote; sometimes intensely disagreed with what she wrote. Many felt that on occasions her colourful style was perhaps not appropriate to the occasion in question. Despite these moments of disagreement many however saw in her the personification of liberty of expression. Daphne Caruana Galizia personified our right to ask questions of those in authority, our right to demand high ethical and moral standards from those in authority, our right to demand accountability as a right and not as an electoral pledge, our right to make our grievances heard even when such grievances concern the highest of authorities.

The bomb that shattered the peaceful surrounding of Bidnija and took away the life of the journalist that was Daphne Caruana Galizia also took away the illusion that our democracy is functioning in a normal manner where debates may get heated but where democracy, freedom, accountability, freedom of expression and meritocracy are a given.

Daphne’s death however should not lead us to give in or give up hope. On the contrary it should fuel in us the passion and energy needed to defend these basic rights we hold so dear. If we can defend democracy, liberty, freedom of expression, accountability and meritocracy than at least Daphne’s death will “only” be a sad reminder of a dark moment in our history when the life of a journalist, a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister was taken away in such a horrific manner. It will not mark the day when our country fell so far down the slippery slope that to call ourselves a European democracy verges on hallucination level. Whether it shall be the former or the latter is entirely up to us.

All is not yet lost; we are still in time to defend democracy, freedom of expression, liberty, accountability and meritocracy. We must however act now and not allow ourselves to be blinded to the reality of the day.

Legal Deja' Vu

I shall not venture to comment directly on the current court proceedings concerning those accused of the homicide of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. Suffice to say that I believe the judiciary is under enough pressure as it is given the way things are developing in the situation. I have always had and still have full respect towards our judiciary and towards the Maltese Courts and because I hold the judiciary and the Maltese Courts in a light of respect I will not be the one to throw reckless commentary online or in any other forum for that matter.

What we are seeing in this case is not however altogether new territory for our courts. Indeed, this is a case deja’ vu where history is repeating itself. I’m sure that the lawyers and the members of the judiciary involved in the Daphne Caruana Galizia need no lectures from me so I will not even dare be presumptuous enough to lecture them. I write merely by way of legal and historical interest and not to lecture anyone or to pontificate to anyone about what should be done with regards to the case at hand.

In the 1980’s Malta’s political scene was alight with the famous ġlieda ta’ l-iskejjel tal-knisja. The case went from being a political battle between the church and the state to being a legal battle between the two. A problem developed when sitting judges where being asked to recuse themselves from hearing the ensuing legal case due to perceived conflicts of interest. For a time it seemed the case was destined to end in embarrassment for the Maltese Courts.

On October 22nd 1984, the Hon. Wallace Gulia, the Hon. Stephen Borg Cardona and the Hon. Joseph D Camilleri carved their names in legal history when in the case L-E.T. Rev.ma Monsinjur Arċisqof Ġuzzeppi Mercieca pro et noe vs L-Onorevoli Prim Ministru noe et, the court presided by them declared that,

Ikkunsidrat li jidher essenzjali li jkun assigurat li ssir ġustizzja skond il-liġi. Il-Qorti tippretendi li l-ġustizzja skond il-liġi ssir bir-rakkmu u r-raffinatezza kollha ukoll; iżda l-ordni tal-prijorita’ loġika fil-ħajja żgur li titlob li l-ewwel għandha tkun assigurata s-sostanza tal-ġustizzja u wara d-delikatezza tar-raffinetezza tagħha.

In the same case the court cited ‘Constitutional and Administrative Law – de Smith’, fourth edition, Street and Brazier who in page 570 had declared that

In very exceptional circumstances, all the adjuticators are affected by a disqualifying interest in which case they may have to sit as a matter of neccessity.

This 1984 case makes for very interesting reading given the circumstances we are currently witnessing.