The death of Nicholas Azzopardi in Mater Dei Hospital on 22 April leaves many unanswered questions, and the longer these remain unanswered the more serious the implications for the Malta Police Force.
Azzopardi died 13 days after being questioned at the Police Depot in Floriana. As has emerged in the media, he was being investigated over allegations of having molested his seven-year-old daughter; what never quite emerged, however, was that these allegations were made by his estranged wife, who has a history of alcoholism and psychological problems, and who had only very recently lost custody of the same daughter to Azzopardi himself in an acrimonious court battle.
Be that as it may, it is both understandable and commendable that the police would investigate such allegations as thoroughly as possible. What is slightly less understandable is how the same suspect could emerge from the Depot with a severely broken left arm and the left side of his front ribcage completely shattered, resulting in severely perforated lungs, and ultimately in his death.
This is clearly no ordinary outcome of a police investigation, and as such the public is owed a serious and detailed explanation of every aspect of his ordeal, from the moment of his arrest to his death.
According to the police statement issued on the day of his hospitalisation (April 9), Azzopardi had been injured while attempting to escape from custody. But there are conflicting versions of what actually happened. According to the first account, given to his brother Reno at the depot at 9.30pm that same day, Nicholas had fallen the height of one and a half storeys after jumping out of an open window. But the official press statement later gave a different account, in which Nicholas Azzopardi had suddenly fallen the height of three storeys from a wall behind the police headquarters.
The initial allegation was also that Nicholas Azzopardi had “injured a police officer” during the interrogation. But this observation failed to make it into the press statement; nor was any police officer known to have received treatment for injuries sustained on that date. The identity of the police officer supposedly injured by Azzopardi has never been disclosed. This newspaper would like to know who he is, and what his injuries actually were.
Other questions arise from Nicholas Azzopardi’s sojourn in hospital. His family yesterday told reporters that Nicholas was eventually placed alone in an isolated room, with a male nursing aide – described as a well-built man “standing to attention” – stationed outside the door. The nursing aide, who has not been identified, accompanied Reno into the ward, and his only duty appeared to be to stop him from filming his brother as he lay on his deathbed. This newspaper would like to know who this male nursing aide actually was.
Although Reno Azzopardi was initially informed that his brother was dying and would probably not survive the night, Nicholas Azzopardi actually survived for 13 days. In the course of that time, his condition improved enormously, to the extent that he was discharged from ITU and moved to Ward One. It was at this point that the inquiring magistrate Anthony Vella spoke to the patient and heard his version for the first time: i.e., that he had been violently beaten by two numberless police officers, and then possibly thrown off a bastion.
Three hours later, Nicholas Azzopardi was dead. The autopsy established the cause of death as thrombosis: and yet, his father Joe Azzopardi claims to have himself purchased the drugs specifically for this condition from the hospital’s own pharmacy earlier that same day, and given them to the medical staff. Was Nicholas given this potentially life-saving treatment? This should have come out in the autopsy; no doubt the certificate of death – as yet unreleased – will elucidate this mystery.
But the overriding questions involve the behaviour of the police after Azzopardi’s hospitalisation. Even if the official version was correct, and Azzopardi did indeed fall during an escape attempt… why did the Police Commissioner not immediately inform the Home Affairs Minister about an incident which could, if not handled properly, be interpreted as a serious human rights’ abuse on the part of the police? In fact Dr Mifsud Bonnici later said that he heard about the issue from the newspapers. This is astonishing, and smacks heavily of a deliberate attempt to keep the matter under wraps.
Given all this, it is difficult not to make comparisons between this incident and another notorious “escape” from the Floriana Depot: that of Nardu Debono, whose lifeless body was discovered under the Wied Cawsli bridge in Qormi in 1980. On that occasion, the police had clearly attempted to cover up what we now know was a violent beating resulting in Debono’s accidental death. But it was only with a change in government in 1987 that the matter was properly investigated, and former Police Commissioner Lawrence Pullicino was convicted for his part in the involuntary homicide.
In this case it is too early to say whether we are dealing with a similar case of attempted or actual murder. But it is a pity that we seem to have reverted to an age when mysterious happenings are promptly covered up, and only come to light thanks to the independent press.