Why is Minister Abela being asked to Resign?

It was not my intention to write again about the Malta Police Force, but the recent ministerial press release, wherein Minister Carmelo Abela “strongly” denied ministerial interference when he was minister responsible for the police force, confirms rather

Dr Simon Mercieca is senior lecturer, Department of History

This minister’s statement was issued as a reaction to what former Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) official Jonathan Ferris stated; that when he was still in the police force, he had received an email which, according to him, was tantamount to political interference.

Former Minister for Home Affairs Carmelo Abela has denied interfering in the work of Jonathan Ferris when the latter was inspector within the force. However, he did clarify that as a result of having received a complaint about Ferris, he had instructed his secretary to email Inspector Ferris, asking what progress had been made concerning a fraud case he was meant to be investigating.

The minister has admitted to having used the wrong procedure. In fact, the normal communication procedure is for the ministry’s secretariat to communicate with the office of the police commissioner, and not between the minister’s personal secretary and a police inspector.

Frankly, I don’t believe that this was a case of ‘lapsus’ on the part of the minister, who simply needed a reply to a simple question. Using a secretary is nothing new. It is a known fact that ministers, during different administrations, in particular after 1971, used to phone police inspectors for various reasons. Guido De Marco himself, when he was minister in charge of the police used to personally call inspectors to demand explanations. I am mentioning this particular case to explain why this was politically wrong. I am not implying here that de Marco was seeking favours. But by phoning inspectors personally, the minister built unnecessary confidentiality with police officers and this proved disastrous for the minister himself.

I agree with the editorial of The Malta Independent, that we should not keep on harping about procedure, even if this can serve as an eye-opener for the government to stick to proper procedure. The most straightforward issue will have to go through all the bureaucratic stages with the result that things never get seen to.

When a minister directly communicates with members of the police force, in the process circumventing the police commissioner, the minister is stating that either he or she has no faith in the commissioner or that the commissioner is a weak person. Normally, this happens because the police commissioner is weak and accepts to be circumvented by his own minister. A strong Commissioner of Police would not permit such interference. This does not only hold true for the police, but for any other department. Communications about issues within government departments are normally dealt with by the permanent secretaries who speak to the respective general director about any complaint against members of their respective staff. Therefore, this behaviour confirms the unwarranted familiarity. If a complaint is lodged with a minister about any police officer, it is the government duty to question the work of the officer but the minister cannot start unilateral investigations. Did Abela, in this case, start a unilateral investigation? I doubt it.

One needs to mention that within the police structures, there is a disciplinary board to deal with complaints of this type. One can question its effectiveness but this is another question. Therefore, the correct procedure in this case should have been for the minister to forward the complaint to the police commissioner and ask him to investigate.

In other countries faced with such a formal admittance, the minister would have tendered his resignation to Parliament. In fact, the Opposition immediately seized the opportunity to ask for Abela’s resignation. But, regrettably, the Opposition has been asking for far too many resignations these past few weeks.

In various cases, individuals have been accused of wrongdoing without having yet been proven guilty. The attack on the current police commissioner is a case in point. One could say that he is naïve, but there has been no proof of any wrongdoing. The behaviour of the Opposition in the case of the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia is even more serious. It should have left the police to carry on with its investigations and avoided having members tabling unnecessary questions in Parliament.

In the long run, the parliamentary questions concerning this investigation are not in the interest of the general public at this stage and can only end up harming the Opposition rather than the government.

In the case of Minister Abela and his admitted ‘interference’, perhaps, one can state that he is exonerated of his political responsibility because this case happened during the past legislature and he has since been re-elected. However, if this government wants to be credible when it asks the Opposition to carry its own political responsibility for past wrong doings, it should also start with its own ministers.

My fear is that the seriousness of this case is going to be obfuscated thanks to the perverse approach that has been taken by the Opposition in recent times. Perversity is now the order of the day as far as the PN is concerned. The impression that the Opposition is giving is of one that believes itself to be a Valkyrie and is behaving as such, which is a great tragedy.

This is why the government can ride roughshod over the Opposition and the country. It is not an issue of votes or members in Parliament. It is an issue of credibility and Labour is more credible than the PN in the eyes of the electorate. The general impression is that all the PN wants to do is to constantly, not just put spokes in the wheel, but destabilise the country at any cost. This is why exponents of the PN should also be cautious when speaking to the foreign press.

In focusing on these petty stories, the Opposition is ignoring a bigger reality revolving around political strategy, in particular the current covert tension within Labour. Unfortunately, the Opposition is not capable of capitalising on it, nor of bringing it to the fore. Both Edward Zammit Lewis and Anton Refalo are putting pressure on the Prime Minister to reappoint them to the cabinet. I hope that the Opposition is not ending up doing the government’s dirty work as the story of Abela can give the opportunity to Muscat to affect a mini-reshuffle to stifle internal pressure, which so far has been hidden from the media. If Zammit Lewis and Refalo were to be appointed again to the cabinet, the question would be who is going to be left out? Such a story does not augur well for Abela.

I don’t think that Muscat can add more to his cabinet as it is going to become ridiculous with more ministers than backbenchers. Thus, who will be those cabinet members who would have to make space so that Zammit Lewis and Refalo return to the cabinet?