The prime minister failed to give the Standards Commissioner a clear reply about his conversation with a magistrate. Without it, the Commissioner could not exonerate Robert Abela of the accusation that he’d breached the ministerial code of ethics.

Abela publicly admitted he’d spoken to a magistrate and discussed sentencing with her. Abela is part of the executive; he heads the executive. The separation of powers in any democracy dictates that communication between the prime minister and members of the judiciary should only occur through official channels.

The Standards Commissioner clearly stated this in his ruling: “Any type of dialogue between the Executive and judiciary must occur through official channels.”

Former Chief Justice Joseph Azzopardi noted that “informal contacts between members of the executive and members of the judiciary are not desirable.  Even if in reality they are innocuous, such contacts sow doubt and speculation about their objective and that, eventually, undermines public confidence in the independence of the courts”.

The Standards Commissioner was categorical:  “This Office cannot accept the argument that a member of the executive has done nothing wrong when seeking contact of this type with a member of the judiciary, even if no specific case is discussed”.

So Abela had done something wrong.

Azzopardi’s decision about whether Abela breached ethics was easy. Abela had made contact with a magistrate and discussed sentencing—he admitted it himself — but he didn’t communicate with that magistrate through official channels.

The Commissioner was explicit that no communication should occur between the executive and the judiciary except through official channels. Abela broke that rule.

And yet the Commissioner still couldn’t bring himself to find Abela guilty. All he could come up with was that he couldn’t exonerate Abela – but couldn’t condemn him either.

Azzopardi’s excuse this time was that Abela failed to give a clear reply.  As is his usual, Abela was intentionally vague and cryptic. He withheld information from the Commissioner.

He refused to provide precise details of the context of his conversation with the magistrate.  Where did he meet her?  How did they communicate?  Did he make contact with her? Or did she?  Or was it just a chance encounter?  If so, where did it happen? Were there other people involved in that conversation? Or was it private?

Abela provided no answers to any of those questions, but he definitely knows the answers.  Isn’t withholding information from the Commissioner a breach of ethics in itself?  Clause 5.7 of the ministerial code of ethics relates to honesty.

It states that ministers “shall provide correct and complete information to parliament, to cabinet and to the public in general”.  Abela didn’t.

It’s clear to any sane person that Abela withheld that information to protect himself from possible sanctions for his evident breach of ethics. That’s not the honesty and transparency the code of ethics demands of him.

But Abela wasn’t just intentionally vague and reticent about providing information.  He was insolent and abusive towards the complainants. His letters to the Commissioner are a masterclass in arrogance, scorn and disdain.

He called the complaints frivolous and accused the complainants of having bad intentions. He denigrated the Law Students Association and mocked them in his reply: “The complainants should know or should get to know that the basic concept on which the separation of powers is based is that every independent branch of the state serves as checks and balances (sic) on the other.”

Abela has this distorted idea that “checks and balances” mean that he, as prime minister, has the power and authority to dictate to the judiciary.  His concept of checks and balances is that he’s entitled to communicate privately and secretly with individual judiciary members to discuss their work, including sentencing.

Abela’s insulting impudence is embarrassing.  Referring to the Law Students’ Association, he said: “For reasons of its own (the Association) is dishonestly twisting my conversation (with the magistrate)”.

He brazenly claimed that “my speech has always been measured, appropriate, and respectful towards the Courts.” Hadn’t he accused a magistrate who toiled for years to uncover the complex web of corruption behind the hospital’s concession of political terrorism? He publicly accused her of political interference by linking the timing of the conclusion of her inquiry to the outcome of the European elections.

He publicly denigrated her after the search at Joseph Muscat’s residence and incited his supporters against her by openly questioning why mobile phones needed to be confiscated.  He used his ONE news to publish photos of the magistrate and made her a target for his troll armies.

“In my words, I always kept a sense of balance and restraint in the interest of all sectors of society,” he said. Wasn’t he the one who accused European Parliament President Roberta Metsola of having her hands stained with blood, that she’s a warmonger and wants to send our children to fight in senseless wars?

The Standards Commissioner wrote to Robert Abela three times to try to get a straight answer. Abela still refused to divulge details. He accused the complainants of intentionally leaving out a part of the code of ethics that states that it is useful and proper for dialogue between the judiciary and other organs of the state.

Abela’s warped idea of dialogue between the judiciary and other organs of the state involves him having secret, private, undocumented conversations with individual members of the judiciary.  He considers his own flagrant breach as “useful and proper”.

The man is either deeply dishonest or has no clue.  Abela’s third letter to the Commissioner was the most arrogant. It consisted of just three lines. He simply referred the Commissioner to one of his own previous rulings, which was entirely irrelevant to the case.

Instead of taking him to task and condemning him for his arrogance and withholding information, the Commissioner simply gave up. He closed the case and ruled that because of Abela’s vague replies, he could not exonerate him but couldn’t find him guilty either. How convenient.