There’s one more thing that’s been at the back of my mind in this Chris Said saga. It took Justine Caruana quite some time to distance herself from the perjury challenge that was made by her client. We then got Roberto Montalto explaining to the press that “his client’s decision was not a personal vendetta against Dr Said but simply a necessary step in his battle to gain custody of his only child”. It is not that easy to separate the political from the legal in this matter given the position held by Chris Said and given the way the Labour leader tried to gain whatever political mileage could be had from the issue at the first opportunity.
The nagging thought I have had relates to both the legal and the political side of the matter. I need to give you a hypothetical case for you to see this clearer. Imagine (just imagine) we were talking about theft or (heaven forbid) a more grievous crime such as murder. Imagine (just imagine) that we had a similar case but instead of perjury, a Parliamentary Secretary is being accused of theft or murder. Now imagine you were a lawyer whose client is claiming that the PS is guilty of one of these crimes and that you also happened to be a member of parliament for the opposition party.
You’d have two options available:
(1) In the first option you would be the one to strongly pursue the allegation because (a) you believe it and (b) it is your duty both towards your client as well as towards society to uncover the criminal acts of a representative of the people currently entrusted with governmental responsibilities.
(2) On the other hand you may feel that the accusation is actually not well-grounded and that being identified as the initiator of such an accusation would not have very good repercussions on your political career in the long term – so you make sure that you are not identified with such an accusation.
Legally this argument is not relevant since it is a lawyer’s duty to inform the client of his options and repercussions of such options but in the end he will take whatever action (within the boundaries of ethics) that the client requires.
Politically though the argument is important. In tis cynical age, there is much mileage to be made by a politician who actually uncovers the misdeeds of another politician. The graver the accusation the greater the duty of the politician to uncover it if he or she believes that this is the truth. Even without the cynicism though there is much to be said in favour of the politician uncovering this kind of truth as a duty towards society. Politically this is the work of the servants of the people, ensuring that anybody else posing as as servant of the people is not tainted with a criminal record that could put into question his ability to handle his public duties.
So the nagging thought I have is this. We have Joseph Muscat trying to gain short-term brownie points BEFORE the actual case is decided by tut-tutting at Gonzi’s rashness to back his PS. At the same time though, we have Justine Caruana who is extremely eager to create an ocean between herself and the case in question – we are led to presume that this is because she is not entirely convinced that Said is actually in the business of the crime of perjury.
Can we presume that she believes that his was a genuine mistake that opened a window of opportunity for Mr Xuereb and his new lawyer to try their luck with a very wide interpretation of the law? Incidentally, the luck starts and ends with the right to institute proceedings for perjury – i.e. no need of very high level of proof at that stage pace the Criminal Court – once the actual perjury proceedings start Mr Xuereb’s lawyer might find that judges will require stronger arguments than “this is not a vendetta”.
The nagging thought is that if Justine were certain that the perjury proceedings would be successful (having been Mr Xuereb’s lawyer throughout the civil side of proceedings) she would be squarely behind her client in that step too – if not legally as his representative (for whatever reasons she may have) then politically. There is nothing wrong with Justine Caruana the politician distancing herself from the proceedings – nothing at all. She is fully entitled to do so. In doing so though, the political message she sends to many (and that she should have insisted upon with her dear leader) is that behind this cloud of smoke there lies nothing much. At least nothing that a politician acting in good faith would deem worth pursuing in the courts of law and taking up in the political forum.
There. Now we wait for the courts to get moving on Tuesday.
