If Malta wasn’t sufficiently steeped in partisan ignorance, Inhobbkom Joseph would have to invent it. His latest intervention in the light of Chris Said’s resignation does not just defy logic but it creates a whole new universe of abject insensitivity, crass opportunism and is the political equivalent of the cheap whore that nobody would pay to sleep with. Inhobbkom Joseph may (and I say may out of whatever modicum of respect is left) have the excuse of having no inkling of the law and how it works since his studies took him far far away from the logical and the rational and into the world of lies and statistics. Having said that however he is surrounded by a bunch of people who might (again might) claim to have an idea about the workings of the law them having been proferred with the dikri (and probably their sporting such dikri on a plakka outside their offices).
Inhobbkom is appalled because Gonzi’s letter accepting Said’s resignation implies a readiness to reappoint Said as PS once this is over. Inhobbkom “jinstab imhasseb” (is worried) that the letter does not leave the judiciary the necessary comfort zone of independence and burdens them with undue pressure. What should worry the electors is that here is a man who will soon be in a decision making position and is able to shoot such weighted bullshit out of his pen in order to gain political mileage. There is no other explanation. The facts of the alleged perjury are known to everyone and his brother (except… it seems… the Maltastar crowd who are intent on depicting Said as a criminal). Mr Leader of the Opposition (should I say Dr?) seems to be very willing to ignore these facts and prefers to murk the waters even more.
Who knows though? This might not be a mistaken attempt by inhobbkom but a concerted effort to sabotage the government’s workings. Given the weak stand of the perjury allegation and coupling that with the fact that Labour MP Justyne Caruana is the “politician/lawyer” handling the allegation on behalf of the supposed victim we would all be forgiven for being convinced that this is yet another Labour attempt to engage in the wrong form of politics. Inhobbkom might inflict damage to Chris Said’s reputation among his detractors but I am firmly convinced that Said will bounce back stronger than before.
Maltastar’s purposive selectivity is not the first we saw this week. The Times of Malta was equally damned when reporting the developments in the Nikki Dimech case. Given that it was reporting different witness statements it was somewhat worying that it chose to highlight the statement of the former contracts manager (the alleged perpetrator or victim of the bribe depending on who you believe) and failed to point out the alleged improper behaviour of a Member of Parliament. It was alleged that Robert Arrigo insisted on the contracts manager being compensated and also that the same Arrigo entered the council and shouted (intimidated) at one of the members. FUnny how the Times developed amnesia about these particular allegations which have as much weight as the allegations that it eventually chose to place in the headline.
8 replies on “Cultivating Ignorance”
You seem to have gone off the rails completely here. Of course Muscat is 100% right on this. Gonzi (or any other prime minister) should never have made those remarks, They are a clear attempt to influence the court.
Welcome back Ettore. Glad to have your incredible legal acumen on our side. Illuminate us on the finer niceties of being “off the rail” will you?
Maybe it’s worthwhile here to remind when was the last time that the charge “the PM is trying to influence the judicial process” was made. It was in the case of former Judges Arrigo and Vella.
The case went to the Constitional Court, which is far better placed than any Leader of the Opposition to tell when it’s “undue influence”. And that Court threw out the case.
On, and the issue revolved around the then PM giving a press conference, flanked by the administration’s top players and with all the gravitas the situation required. Not the publisation of a letter the PM did not even address to anyone in the judiciary.
One last thing: that Constitutional Case only went to show how desperate the Arrigo and Vella were and how they were only clutching at straws. Says a lot about the complaints about the PM’s interference this time round.
There is a slight difference betweent he Gonzi and Fenech Adami approach (admittedly also in the gravity of the matter). But FA does not seem to have augured anyone a speedy return: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20020802/local/chief-justice-judge-under-investigation
And? The question is: if the Court decided that the PM’s comments in 2002 did not constitute undue influence why should the comments of 2010 (delivered in a ligher context) be considered any differently?
Jahasra it does not follow faust.
1) I don’t think Gonzi should not have spoken in a conference. He might have spared the “speedy recovery” business.
2) On a more legal note. Should this actually end up before the constitutional court the formula is definitely not: There is a precedent that a PM press conference unduly influence the judiciary.
The formula would be “we have previously examined the content of the PMs press conference and concluded that it did not amount to undue influence and now we will examine this one and decide….”
See? It’s not just nitpicking. You cannot create a blanket exemption for press conferences on the basis of one press conference having been unsuccessfully challenged.
All this is legal mental masturbation though. I too think there was no undue influence though , as I said, the Gonzi comment of “speedy return” was rash and unneccessary.
Jacques, just to clarify that mine was not an attempt at a legal argument. Just so that our friend here might lower his confidence margin of 100% of Muscat being right. To be optimistic: to 90%?
fetehemna. Dunno. The law does not dabble in percentages. We leave that to statistic dabblers called liars (not lawyers) from FEMA :)