I’m sure that, by now, you’ve all read the MaltaToday story quoting unnamed Labour Party insiders spilling the beans on some very serious criminal activity allegedly conducted by their own prime minister.
While the article refers to several aspects of the prime minister’s beleaguered administration, the meat of the story is in its mid-section. In it, MaltaToday claims that the prime minister “directed” senior police figures to avoid interrogating individuals named by the hospitals concession inquiry and instead charge them all in court at once.
The newspaper further claims that this was done to spread the blame as widely as possible, thereby minimising the possibility that disgraced former prime minister Joseph Muscat could be seen as the individual solely responsible for the corruption surrounding the deal. The office of the attorney general was also told to follow the same approach. The newspaper claims that this “big and serious mistake” was made in an attempt at pacifying the party’s grassroots who still worship Muscat.
I am framing these claims as MaltaToday’s because daily newspaper editors must take a bigger slice of responsibility for what they publish when quoting unnamed sources, moreso if they are members of an administration made up of pathological liars. Frequent readers of this website will be familiar with our insistence that providing elected office-holders with the opportunity to anonymously slander their own boss and presenting it as a news report is a betrayal of the democratic process.
We’ll say it again, as many times as is necessary: Cabinet members should use their official, public channels if they are not content with Abela’s leadership. There are official constitutional procedures which can be used to push a motion of no confidence in the prime minister. If they are so upset about his leadership style, then what the hell are they waiting for? And more importantly, why are the journalists who are writing these confessional booth pieces on their behalf not asking them about this?
Of course, Abela’s response to MaltaToday’s “story” is as pathetic as one would expect it to be. The story was published first thing Sunday morning, a few hours before the prime minister could give his usual Sunday sermon on his party’s radio station.
So what did Abela do? He gave his Sunday sermon anyway and then proceeded to issue a statement in which he “categorically denied” that his office had “given any direction similar to what has been maliciously reported”. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried: Abela went on a ‘feel-good budget trash talk’ spree on his party’s radio before being forced to deny that he had ordered law enforcement to go slow on Muscat.
The office of the prime minister strenuously denied any suggestions of interference “with the functions of the mentioned institutions”, though there seems to be no reference to any commentary from the prime minister’s office about obvious dissent within the party. This is a marked tone shift considering that, two months ago, the prime minister still had the audacity to claim that Cabinet backed him unanimously.
Yet again, here comes up the whisperers’ dilemma – leaking narratives which undermine the prime minister may benefit those within his own party who want to quietly force him out, but it also undermines their own standing. How can your claim be credible if it is made anonymously through a friendly newspaper while, on the other hand, the prime minister is free to deny it openly and further abuse power to ensure any allies he may have in the police force and in the office of the attorney general keep it all hush hush?
Besides that, the point is that they shouldn’t be allowed to do this quietly, because this is not some backroom card game, but a democracy.
After all, we are talking about very serious accusations here. Had these so called Labour insiders called out the prime minister publicly, we’d be able to hear names and details of the police officers and public prosecutors in question and have them answer for their role in all this as well. The truth lies somewhere, and by effectively assuming ‘insider claims’ as their own, MaltaToday is serving as its gatekeeper.
The prime minister’s denial means nothing unless he sues the newspaper for publishing these claims. If he is so certain of his categorical denial, he would be in a position to substantiate it in court and force the newspaper’s hand. The fact that he hasn’t yet is telling. Abela is a known pathological liar and, based on his incendiary attacks on the judiciary and his total disregard for democratic processes whenever it suits him, it seems reasonable to think that there may be the ring of truth to MaltaToday’s story about the prime minister’s direct interference.
The absolute tragedy of this mess is that we will never really know whether Abela really interfered with police and AG operations connected to the hospitals concession unless someone steps forward to provide concrete evidence that proves it. Therein lies the foul in entrusting your front page to narratives spun by cowards committing a half-hearted mutiny.
You cannot trade transparent journalism for agenda-driven gossip and actually get to the bottom of the story. Those are not the words of someone speaking the truth. They are only the words of a mouthpiece. Obtaining clicks from insider gossip cannot be used to justify betraying the primary function of the fourth pillar of democracy.
I hope that someone proves me wrong and publishes at least a shred of tangible data which indicates that Abela did issue these orders, or at the very least some form of confirmation obtained directly from the public officials who allegedly executed the prime minister’s illegal directives.
Our democracy has been sliding backwards for years. Let us not allow the same to happen to what’s left of our publishing standards.
