Repubblika is bewildered by the apparent reluctance of the authorities to request a magisterial inquiry into reports that Adrian Agius was found in possession of a laptop with internet access inside prison.
An administrative inquiry may establish whether prison regulations were breached and who was responsible for any supervisory failures. However, an administrative inquiry is not a criminal investigation. Evidence gathered through such a process cannot, on its own, form the basis of a criminal prosecution.
If there is reason to suspect that criminal offences may have been committed, the law provides a specific mechanism for collecting and preserving evidence for use before the courts. That mechanism is a magisterial inquiry. Only evidence gathered through the criminal investigative process, under the supervision of an inquiring magistrate and with the assistance of court-appointed experts, can be properly preserved and presented in any eventual criminal proceedings.
We do not know what use was made of the laptop or the internet connection. The public is not in a position to know. However, we do know who Adrian Agius is. He is serving a life sentence for his role in the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia and the murder of Carmel Chircop. For many years, investigators have identified him as a central figure in organised criminal activity.
In these circumstances, it is only prudent to proceed on the presumption that a device enabling communication with the outside world may have been used for criminal purposes, unless and until the contrary is established. The possibility that the device contains evidence relevant to criminal activity in the past, present, or future cannot be ignored.
The authorities must take action proportionate to the gravity of the situation. Every day that passes without potential evidence being preserved and examined through the appropriate judicial procedures increases the risk that evidence will be lost or that any future prosecution will be compromised.
The public has a right to know not only how this situation came about, but also what the laptop was used for.
The insistence on relying solely on an internal administrative inquiry creates the impression that the authorities are more interested in limiting the political damage they may suffer than in establishing the full truth. We fear that an opportunity to collect and preserve important evidence is being lost, and we urge the authorities to act immediately.
Even if a forensic examination of the laptop ultimately shows it was not used for criminal purposes, that conclusion should be reached through an independent judicial investigation, not an internal administrative process.