The controversy about the Mugliett affair rumbles on. The main issue, of course, is that the Roads Minister acted unethically or in a less than circumspect manner when he intervened and ìsuggestedî that two ADT employees who had been found guilty of bribery, be suspended instead of fired, pending the decision as to whether they should be granted a presidential pardon or not.
At no point was it suggested that Jesmond Mugliett perverted the course of justice by stopping the prosecution or sentencing of the corrupt two. Nor is he being dragged over the coals for lobbying for a pardon for the two ñ we have had no inkling of that, even though he forms part of the Cabinet which makes recommendations to the President as to whether a pardon should be granted. No, Jesmond Mugliett finds himself in this fine pickle ñ one which is entirely of his making ñ solely because of his uncalled for intervention on behalf of a couple of convicted criminals, one of whom happens to be his canvasser. That a minister should not attempt to keep corrupt persons on the ADTís books, even temporarily, is clear enough to me. So it is with a growing sense of irritation that I read the contributions of certain commentators who try to fudge the issue and sidetrack public discussion.
One such contribution was penned by Peppi Azzopardi of Xarabank fame. The contribution which appeared in The Times was entitled ìJustice not vendettaî. It may have been intended as a defence of Jesmond Mugliett but it turned out to be an exposition of muddled thinking and a fatalistic acceptance of the corrupt system of patronage prevalent in Malta. Mr Azzopardi seems to think that the two ex-ADT employees are victims of a system which is programmed to destroy them or to mete out some form of ìvendettaî. He rules out the logical and factual reason for them finding themselves in their present day predicament ñ namely that they committed a crime and are now facing the consequences of their actions.
By confusing justice with vendetta, Azzopardi perpetuates the myth of the convicted person as the victimised underdog hard done by society. He ignores the fact that people can exercise their free will and that they can choose not to accept bribes for allowing inexpert drivers loose on the road. There may be mitigating circumstances in some cases but not all persons found guilty of accepting bribes are forced to do so because they live in a state of penury surviving on a diet of mouldy bread and rain water. In most cases itís greed, not need. Azzopardi blithely dismisses such considerations. He flings out rhetorical questions to the editors and journalists who he claims are seeking their pound of flesh. ìWhat would you have said had these two individuals been your children or your parents? You would probably have hurled insults at the minister for not interveningî. Well, no, Peppi, not exactly. If my parents or children were to be found guilt of a crime, I would be embarrassed. I would be saddened. I might be angered or possibly puzzled at what made them act in the way they did. However, I cannot imagine myself berating the Minister and calling him names because he refused to intervene to retain a job for those who had betrayed public trust. I very much doubt that I would have the effrontery to march into a ministerís office, throw the court judgment down on his desk, bang my fist on the table and demand that my guilty relatives be treated leniently. The kind of people who do that are the ones who expect ministers to indulge them ñ to receive that to which they are not entitled to at law. They are the kind of people who expect the minister to find them a job, or a promotion even when theyíre hopelessly unqualified for it. They are the ones who perpetuate the system of political patronage in this country. They commit crimes and then find the backing of local celebrities like Peppi Azzopardi when they demand to be treated leniently.
Anybody who points out that being fired from their post as an examiner is the foreseeable consequence of their accepting tenners for allowing people who cannot get through a driving test onto the road, is branded as a vengeful critic hell-bent on some inexplicably-motivated vendetta. With this warped kind of thinking, where patronage is confused with what should be expected from a politician by right, with justice and enforcement being mistaken for revenge, itís no wonder that so many people have given up on the possibility of corruption and clientelism being weeded out or even recognized.
If you thought that the part of Peppi Azzopardiís article about hurling insults at the Minister for not intervening was bad, read on. It gets worse, much worse. Peppi wrote, ìI personally look at Minister Mugliettís actions with increasing admiration. He was not a Pontius Pilate in these two individualsí regard. He did not wash his hands fearing he would get burnt. He intervened and was left spinning in a vicious political spinning exerciseî. These statements took my breath away and left me gasping away like an upturned goldfish. In his attempt to transform Jesmond Mugliett from the villain to the hero of this sordid episode, Peppi praises him for intervening. He admires the Minister for not washing his hands of the whole affair, when that is precisely what he should have done. Jesmond Mugliett is not the brave hero of Peppiís description, fearlessly righting wrongs unfairly wrought upon the poor wretches at the ADT. He is a Minister who intervened in the decision regarding the suspension or firing of corrupt staff, one of whom was his canvasser. He had no business in doing so and should attract public censure and not the sycophantic paeans of praise gushed out by Peppi Azzopardi. He was not Pontius Pilate and thatís why heís not St. Jesmond. No inane article by local talk show host should convince us otherwise.