Common sense finally prevailed on Tuesday when the third magistrate appointed to preside over the compilation of evidence into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia threw out a request, by the defence, for her recusal.
The legal tricks that the lawyers representing the three accused men had employed against the first two magistrates did not work with Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit.
Last week Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech was commended when she pointed out a possible conflict of interest, as weak as it was, and decreed that she could not hear the case. Then, on Monday, the same was done by Magistrate Charmaine Galea, who pointed out that the deceased had once criticized her appointment.
The defence again jumped at the opportunity and asked for recusal, which they got. In the meantime, fears were growing that the men accused of bombing Daphne's car would walk free on a technicality.
We failed to see why the magistrate agreed to that request. Ironically, if there was a bias, it was in favour of the accused, not against them. If Daphne had written against the magistrate than the magistrate would be more likely favour the accused, going on that same line of reasoning.
By that point the whole case had been turned into a farce and some of those involved in the case were making a mockery out of justice.
Kudos to the Magistrate for putting an end to this charade and ensuring that justice is not delayed or denied.
Had she abstained from hearing the case the probability is that the defence would have asked for the recusal of her successor as well so it is good to see that the evidence is finally being heard.
And from what has been said so far in court, the police really do have a strong case against the accused.
Chris Said's motion
Adrian Delia called Labour's bluff, the PN media told us, after the PN leader support a motion by PN MP Chris Said calling for an independent three-judge inquiry to look into all claims made by Daphne Caruana Galizia.
One could say, however, that Delia only called their bluff because he knew that the motion would never pass. How could this government ever endorse such a motion, with all the dirt that it could expose?
Chris Said had been accused of undermining his own leader with the motion. That could well have been the case but, if anything, the motion created a win-win situation for Delia, who could publicly support it to show he is all for transparency but could do so with the comfort of knowing that the motion would be defeated by a government majority.
At the end of there should not be a private member's motion for such an inquiry to take place. In a supposedly civilized European country where the rule of law thrives, where politicians never resign because they never do anything wrong, such an inquiry should be the norm not the exception. It should be automatic.
At least the Prime Minister did call for an inquiry into the accusations levelled against him and his wife. Adrian Delia cannot boast of the same thing.
Delia told government MPs that if they had nothing to hide they should have voted in favour of the motion.
With that same yardstick, if he has nothing to hide, and especially now that he has backed Chris Said's motion, Delia should call for an inquiry into the accusations levelled against him.