Opposition leader Alex Borg has called for sweeping institutional reforms in the aftermath of the latest developments surrounding the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder case, saying Malta now needs to move beyond press conferences and political statements and deliver two things: “justice and reform.”In a wide-ranging discussion with journalists, Borg backed unexplained wealth orders, stronger anti-SLAPP protections, major reforms to the Attorney General’s Office, changes to party financing and even a warrant system for journalists.He also faced repeated questions over the PN’s increasingly fierce criticism of Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg, whether Police Commissioner Angelo Gafà should shoulder responsibility, the Opposition’s own record, politicians’ relationships with businesspeople, and his claims surrounding Castille.At the centre of his argument was one message: five years after the public inquiry into Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination, its recommendations should no longer be sitting on a shelf.“It is important that these recommendations are implemented today rather than tomorrow,” Borg said.Unexplained Wealth Orders, Anti-SLAPP And A Stronger AGAsked which three reforms he would prioritise if he became Prime Minister tomorrow, Borg first pointed towards unexplained wealth orders.Using the British legal framework as a possible basis, he said such legislation could allow investigations when somebody’s wealth appears inexplicably out of proportion with their legitimate income.His second major priority was stronger anti-SLAPP legislation, arguing that Malta’s current protections do not go far enough.Borg recalled how PN MPs Jason Azzopardi and Therese Comodini Cachia had proposed anti-SLAPP legislation in 2018, and pointed towards the subsequent European work of David Casa and Roberta Metsola on what became known as Daphne’s Law.While Malta eventually introduced anti-SLAPP measures following an EU directive, Borg argued that journalists remain exposed to other forms of legal action.His aim, he said, would be holistic domestic legislation protecting journalists against any type of proceeding designed to silence them.He also backed making it a criminal offence for public officials to obstruct ongoing investigations.And another reform was repeatedly placed at the centre of the discussion: a major overhaul of the Attorney General’s Office.Borg wants the AG to have greater powers to investigate on its own initiative, alongside more staff, resources and funding to strengthen its ability to prosecute cases.For Borg, however, these should not be treated as isolated reforms.Every recommendation from the public inquiry addresses a serious shortcoming in Malta’s laws or institutions, he argued, and the country has already waited more than five years for action.Borg Pressed On Whether He Believes The Attorney General Is ‘Corrupt’The conversation became considerably more heated when journalists turned towards the Opposition’s attacks on Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg.Borg was asked whether he agreed with comments from a PN MP Mark Anthony Sammut describing her as corrupt.He stopped short of calling her corrupt but went on to highlight serious shortcomings in the AG’s performance for years, pointing towards cases involving Rosianne Cutajar, Neville Gafà and Justyne Caruana.According to Borg, there were cases in which the AG could have acted but failed to do so, with some eventually becoming time-barred under Malta’s statute of limitations.Pressed specifically on whether he considered the AG corrupt, Borg recalled a statement attributed to former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat when he was Opposition leader: “If you do not fight corruption, you are corrupt yourself.”But he stopped short of making the direct allegation himself, instead reiterating that the PN’s position was that the AG had repeatedly failed to carry out her duties in the best possible way.Borg also criticised Buttigieg’s absence from the recent major trial, arguing that in a case of such magnitude her presence would have demonstrated that she was personally overseeing proceedings and supporting the prosecutors working under her.He did not claim her presence would necessarily have changed the outcome.Rather, he argued that it would have offered reassurance at a moment when the country was shocked by what was emerging.Journalists repeatedly challenged Borg over the language being used against the Attorney General, but he consistently returned to the same point: in a functioning democracy, when sufficient evidence exists for action, the public expects institutions to act.‘Why Was Castille Accessed?’Borg was also challenged over his repeated references to Castille in connection with the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder investigation.Asked whether he possessed concrete evidence of a plan being hatched there, and whether he would hand such evidence to Police Commissioner Angelo Gafà, Borg pointed instead towards the judge’s call for third parties mentioned during proceedings to be investigated.He said he assumed those investigations had now started.“OK, nine years late if they have started now,” he remarked.Borg then listed several locations accessed in connection with the investigation, including a potato shed, a ranch in Żebbuġ, Portomaso, Bidnija and Castille.His question was simple: if the other locations were accessed because they had some connection to the case, why was Castille accessed?He also pointed towards references to Castille and senior figures based there that emerged through Melvin Theuma’s testimony.However, when asked whether he personally possessed evidence that he could hand to the police, Borg said that was not his role.“I am not the police,” was his argument: investigating is the police’s job.What the country should now expect, he said, is for those investigations to be carried out properly.Borg Rejects Claim PN Turned Trial Into A ‘Political Football’Borg also pushed back against suggestions that his reaction to the verdict amounted to politicising the case.He said the Opposition had deliberately remained cautious while proceedings were underway.If he had wanted to turn the trial into a political spectacle, Borg argued, he could have issued statements and held press conferences every time politically damaging testimony emerged.He chose not to.But once the jury reached its verdict, Borg said remaining silent would itself have been a failure.The country, he argued, now needs justice and reform.Asked whether the Opposition should itself have done more before the trial, including placing corruption and Daphne more prominently at the centre of its electoral campaign, Borg pointed towards his pledge to immediately implement the recommendations from the Daphne Caruana Galizia and Jean Paul Sofia public inquiries if elected.He said his election strategy had focused on presenting the PN as an alternative government, rather than simply asking people to vote against Labour.The PN, he argued, needed to convince people it could govern better rather than simply telling them the other side was bad.Should The AG Appeal? Borg Says That’s For The LawyersBorg was also asked about the possibility of the Attorney General appealing the trial result.He refused to say whether an appeal should be filed.That decision, he said, should be left to the lawyers involved and the appropriate legal processes.As Opposition leader, Borg said his responsibility was to make sure Malta’s institutions functioned properly, not to tell prosecutors what legal steps they should take.He said he respected both the jury’s verdict and whatever legal processes may follow.On the police more generally, Borg said he had confidence in officers “of goodwill” and would support those carrying out their duties properly.But that support, he stressed, did not extend to officers who failed to do their jobs.‘A Phone Call Alone’ Doesn’t Prove Politician-Business WrongdoingThe discussion also turned towards one of the uncomfortable themes emerging from the trial: the proximity between Malta’s politicians and businesspeople.A journalist pointed out that such relationships were not exclusive to Labour and referred specifically to communications involving PN figure Beppe Fenech Adami.Borg rejected the idea that the two major parties should automatically be placed “in the same basket”.A phone call by itself, he argued, does not prove wrongdoing.Malta is small and politicians inevitably communicate with many people. The important question, according to Borg, is why they are communicating and whether there is mala fede – bad faith, behind the relationship.He drew a distinction between legitimate professional communication and relationships motivated by ulterior interests that go against the national interest.At the same time, Borg acknowledged historical problems surrounding the PN’s own financing.If reforms should have happened and did not, he said, that was wrong.Borg Open To State Funding For Political PartiesThat led into another significant proposal: reforming how Malta’s political parties are funded.Borg said he was prepared to sit down with the Government and reform Malta’s party-financing laws in the interests of greater transparency and accountability.He also backed discussing state financing for political parties.Under the current system, he argued, parties depend heavily on donations and fundraising marathons.A holistic reform could reduce that dependence and, in turn, reduce the possibility of external donors influencing a party’s decisions.Political parties need to remain autonomous, Borg said, but any meaningful reform of the system would require agreement from both sides of the political divide.Should Mafia-Style Cases Still Be Decided By Juries?Another question raised during the discussion was whether Malta should reconsider the use of juries in organised crime or mafia-style murder cases involving powerful people.Borg said he was open to discussing changes wherever reforms could improve the administration of justice.But he did not consider jury reform Malta’s most urgent conversation right now.His priorities remained justice, institutional reform and implementing the public inquiry recommendations.And Borg stressed that, despite the proceedings that have already taken place, Malta has still not identified and imprisoned whoever commissioned Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination.“Whoever he is, or whoever they are, they are still outside,” he said.Until the mastermind or masterminds are identified and brought to justice, Borg argued, Malta cannot say it has delivered justice either to Daphne’s family or to the country.Borg ‘Completely Agrees’ With A Journalist WarrantOne of Borg’s clearest answers came when the discussion moved onto who exactly qualifies as a journalist – and whether Malta should introduce a formal journalist’s warrant.“I completely agree,” Borg said.He argued that journalism should be considered a profession rather than a hobby and compared such a system with his own warrant as a lawyer.A professional warrant, he said, can provide protections while simultaneously creating responsibilities around a person’s conduct.Borg acknowledged that defining who qualifies as a journalist would be complicated.“If I, Alex Borg, wake up tomorrow morning and decide to open a blog and comment independently, I don’t think that makes me a journalist like you,” he said.However, he also stressed that freedom of expression belongs to everybody.His proposal appeared to envisage different levels of recognition and protection: full-time professional journalists would receive clear safeguards, while bloggers and other influential voices should also be protected because their ability to express themselves freely remains important to democracy.Journalists challenged Borg on a potential danger of warrants: what happens if a government can threaten an inconvenient journalist by revoking their professional status?Borg responded by pointing towards the need for safeguards for investigative journalism and robust anti-SLAPP laws.Journalists investigating stories, he said, should be able to publish without fearing legal action capable of financially destroying them.And the public inquiry recommendations should be a starting point, rather than the final word, for reform.If he became Prime Minister, Borg said, he would want journalists to feel comfortable asking him whatever they wanted – including questions that made him uncomfortable.They must be able to work “without any obstacles, without any fear, without any intimidation”, he said.And What About Angelo Gafà?The discussion ended with another direct question: if the PN believes the Attorney General has failed, does Borg also believe Police Commissioner Angelo Gafà should resign?Borg again stopped short of a direct yes-or-no answer.He reiterated that he supports police officers of goodwill, but cannot support people who fail to carry out their duties properly.Asked specifically whether Gafà fell into that second category, Borg left the judgement to the public.“The public can judge everything I am saying,” he replied.Borg also took aim at Prime Minister Robert Abela, arguing there was a contradiction between the government’s rhetoric about protecting journalists and comments previously made by Labour figures about Daphne Caruana Galizia.“There is a sea between words and actions,” Borg said.And that distinction – between what Malta’s political leaders say and what the country’s institutions actually do – ultimately ran through the entire discussion.For Borg, the test now is whether the aftermath of one of the biggest trials in Malta’s history leads to another cycle of political statements, or finally translates into the institutional reforms and further investigations he says the country has been waiting years to see.•