On the eve of a public protest on their doorstep, government MPs on the Consideration of Bills Committee insisted on adding to their arsenal of tools to neuter magisterial inquiries.
Though the reform is expansive and carries caveats that resemble reform, it is a Trojan horse that looks an awful lot like disgraced former prime minister Joseph Muscat’s Christmas wishlist.
All of the additional amendments you will read about below were approved by the government’s majority in the committee. The chair of the committee is disgraced former minister Michael Farrugia, who voted in favour of every single amendment pushed through by his ‘former’ colleagues.
Here are nine key insights from Tuesday’s three and a half hour Parliamentary committee session.
1. More magisterial inquiry requests subject to Bill 125
Amending what is known as the bill’s ‘transitory provision’, the government widened the scope of the law to ensnare requests for magisterial inquiries which were filed after 1 January, 2025. Prior yesterday’s amendments, the original proposal applied solely to requests which were filed before that date.
Just minutes before the committee session began, criminal lawyer and anti-corruption activist Jason Azzopardi claimed that the government inserted this additional amendment to include his three appeals for inquiries that would investigate corruption allegations made in Gozo minister Clint Camilleri‘s regard.
Justice minister Jonathan Attard is spearheading the implementation of Bill 125 and went as far as abusing parliamentary privilege to target a former chief justice while doing so. He is also one of the government’s representatives on this committee, alongside culture minister Owen Bonnici and disgraced former justice minister Edward Zammit Lewis.
During Tuesday’s committee hearing, Attard did not deny the government’s intent to make those specific inquiries irrelevant when confronted by Opposition MP Karol Aquilina. Though he did not mention Jason Azzopardi by name, Attard repeatedly claimed that Bill 125 would impose more responsibilities on everyone involved in the process while “safeguarding” the right to be protected from frivolous investigations.
In other words – Jason was right.
A screenshot of Jason Azzopardi’s Facebook post before yesterday’s session.
2. From private citizens to private investigators
The government’s MPs on the committee also insisted on placing a greater burden of proof on any private citizens who wish to file a request for a magisterial inquiry from here on out.
Opposition MP Karol Aquilina – largely a one man show throughout the entire hearing – warned that the restructuring of the process of filing a request now comes with three additional obstacles.
Aquilina argued that there will be hardly anything a citizen would be able to do if the attorney general and the police deem that a matter is not worth investigating, if the attorney general does not decide to request a magisterial inquiry, and/or if there is a lack of investigation from both.
The only available remedies would be partial at best – and even then, they wouldn’t be accessible to most citizens unless they are willing to lawyer up and take the state to court.
In case of inaction from the police commissioner, one can resort to filing challenge proceedings. In the case of the attorney general, one would be able to file a request for a judicial review which would discern whether the attorney general’s decision was justified. Such a review would not be able to order redress.
These new parameters, coupled with the fact that a citizen would somehow need to secure enough proof to satisfy a civil court, effectively mean that the burden of thoroughly investigating a suspected crime is being shifted onto citizens while all the decision-making power is shifted into the hands of the police commissioner and the attorney general (two posts occupied by heavily compromised government appointees).
3. Indemnity for suspects
Bill 125 also increases a private citizen’s exposure to potentially being targeted by the subjects of their requests for an inquiry.
The bill includes a clause which specifically states that, should the plaintiff be later found to have made a “frivolous, unfounded, or vexatious” request, will give the inquiring magistrate discretion to potentially find them guilty of a crime.
Though Opposition MPs questioned the sense of first forcing citizens to compile civil court grade evidence and then including provisions to punish anyone found to have made a request in bad faith, the additional “safeguards” for the rights of the accused will nonetheless be included.
4. An inquiry for every avenue of investigation
As if investigating complex crimes wasn’t difficult enough as is, the government’s new amendments further added to the confusion.
Opposition MP Mark Anthony Sammut argued that one of the reworded clauses effectively binds an inquiring magistrate to focus solely on whoever is named as a suspect in the inquiry.
By way of a simple example, if the inquiring magistrate starts by investigating person A but then establishes that person B was actually the main culprit, then another inquiry must be opened about person B – instead of widening the ongoing probe, as is current practice.
“This is something that does not happen and that the police force will certainly not do on their own steam,” Karol Aquilina pointed out following a request for clarification sent by this website.
5. …speaking of suspects
One of the most disturbing aspects of Bill 125 is that it also binds inquiring magistrates to disclosure related to any evidence they may have about persons who become suspects throughout the course of the inquiry (but were not named as suspects in the initial report that triggered the inquiry).
Though the magistrate is given discretion to dispense information “as they see fit”, they are still nonetheless obliged to do so. The suspect, on the other hand, isn’t – they would still have the right to refuse to testify to avoid self-incrimination.
Justice minister Jonathan Attard’s impassioned defence of a suspect’s right to disclosure mirrors the same exact argument made by disgraced former prime minister Joseph Muscat in a shambolic constitutional court case filed just before the hospitals concession case began its process in court.
Though Muscat claimed that inquiring magistrate Gabriella Vella had not disclosed evidence about Muscat, her report clearly outlined that Muscat did not show up for a hearing which was specifically designated for that task.
6. Counting pennies
The government also insisted on placing more onerous conditions on inquiring magistrates and their use of the court’s budget to carry out their work.
The government’s MPs on the committee insisted that payments issued to foreign court experts must be pegged to whatever is equivalent on the local market, that court expert fees which exceed €50,000 must be approved by the chief justice, and that inquiring magistrates will be obliged to ‘consider’ how much they’re spending on the inquiry process in comparison with the monetary value of the crime that is being investigated.
Though justice minister Jonathan Attard was quick to argue that this has become procedure in other countries in Europe, in Malta’s context, it only means that such a measure is ripe for abuse and further restricts an inquiring magistrate’s powers.
7. A two-year limit
The government is also seeking to codify a two-year limit for any magisterial inquiry to be concluded – though it does allow some leeway for extensions whenever deemed necessary. The concluded report would then go to the attorney general (as is current practice), placing the ball in the AG’s court.
8. The ‘Trojan’ part of the horse
Like any other cleverly assembled piece of legislation, Bill 125 comes with plenty of sweeteners.
In a comment which sums it up well, Aquilina said that “the few good changes (proposed in the bill) are framed incorrectly, which shows that the intent isn’t based on the observance of the rights of the victims but to provide more rights and privileges to suspects like Joseph Muscat.”
9. One final blow to inquiring magistrates
The real kicker is that the additional riders on this bill will also reduce an inquiring magistrate’s ability to issue criminal charges.
Effectively, this means that an inquiring magistrate will now be totally restricted to gathering evidence and recommending criminal charges rather than also being able to issue them.
***
If you do not want any of this to happen, then you know where you need to be tonight.
A screenshot of a poster advertising Wednesday’s protest in front of Parliament.