Muscat’s comment on magistrate stirs up a hornet’s nest
● Comment ‘could be seen as exerting undue influence’ ● Chamber says its remarks also aimed at Busuttil
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s next step should be to explain what he meant by his statements regarding the magisterial inquiry, as what he said could be seen as exerting undue influence, President of the Chamber of Advocates George Hyzler told The Malta Independent.
Yesterday, the Chamber of Advocates slammed comments made on television by the prime minister regarding the inquiry led by Magistrate Aaron Bugeja, saying that they constituted inappropriate pressure.
Magistrate Aaron Bugeja is conducting an inquiry into allegations that the prime minister’s wife, Michelle Muscat, is the owner of the Panamanian company Egrant Inc.
On TVM, the prime minister was asked what would happen should he lose the election only to be later cleared by the inquiry. Muscat said that it would be “the magistrate’s problem,” and that the magistrate would need to carry it the responsibility. “What can I do then. I can’t turn back the clock. I would have resigned, gone out of political life. It would not be my problem,” the prime minister said.
Lawyers who spoke with this newsroom said that in the halls of the court the prime minister’s comments are not just being interpreted as undue influence, but some are also interpreting them as a threat or a warning.
The Chamber said that the judiciary must always be left to conduct their work serenely, without any interference or pressure. “This applies even more during the period prior to an election.”
In a statement, it expressed serious concern over the prime minister’s comments, “which burdened the magistrate with responsibility for the coming election, and the eventual consequences. These comments constitute inappropriate pressure on the inquiring magistrate, and went beyond every limit of prudence and responsibility.”
The Chamber said that it was the prime minister who called the inquiry and called a general elections just a few days later, in the shortest period allowed by the Constitution, as is his prerogative.
“It is known that inquiries take their time and that the inquiring magistrate is dedicating all of his time to this inquiry in view of the time it was called.” The Chamber also said that it is not the competence of the prime minister to dictate when an inquiry should be concluded.
The Chamber of Advocates has appealed to all those who have an influence over public opinion, including journalists, bloggers “and particularly politicians” to restrain themselves when it comes to comments on the Judiciary.
This newsroom also asked Dr Hyzler about comments made by Opposition leader Simon Busuttil, which could be perceived as placing indirect pressure on magistrates, such as statements referring to the prime minister’s guilt, or the guilt of his chief of staff, Keith Schembri. Dr Hyzler referred to the paragraph in the press release appealing to all those who have an influence on public opinion to restrain themselves when it comes to comments about the judiciary. “It was directed at everyone including Simon Busuttil.”
Yesterday, Simon Busuttil, while condemning the statement made by the prime minister, made reference to the appointment of Mr Justice Toni Abela to the bench. “How can I appear before someone who spent a long time calling me names and expect him to be independent,” Dr Busuttil said. Dr Busuttil also said that former PL deputy leader Anglu Farrugia was fired by Dr Muscat for comments about an alleged bias with regard to a magistrate back in 2013.
Dr Hyzler said that he wishes that comments that could undermine the confidence of the public in the judiciary “such as Dr Busuttil’s negative comment about Mr Justice Toni Abela be avoided.”
“When Mr Justice Abela was a politician he was acting like a politician. Now he is a judge and we have no reason to expect that he will not carry out his constitutional role correctly and according to his oath of office as have others before him,” Dr Hyzler said.
Dr Hyzler said that the leader of the Opposition has expressed himself forcefully on certain issues and “what I am advocating is that the judiciary should be left alone as much as possible and that this kind of pressure should not be put on them.”
Asked why the Chamber’s statement focused on the prime minister’s statement and not on Dr Busuttil he stated that “the comments are absolutely not comparable.”
“Our statement was about the prime minister’s statement regarding the magistrate being saddled with responsibility if he does not decide by the election date and the responsibility for the consequences if it eventually results that the allegations were untrue.”