The 2008 case concerned the rape of a 14-year-old girl by four men in Nadur. When the family reported the abuse to the police, Fr Michael Said was one of the intermediaries in an attempt by the accused to buy the victim’s silence with a €7,000 offer.
The girl’s family did withdraw the complaint a day later, a decision that caused the rape charges to be extinguished, even though the family later told the court they acquiesced under duress and regretted accepting the payment.
The case resurfaced last March after the Appeals Court confirmed the acquittal of all men on the basis that the victim had dropped the accusations as an adult following an out of court settlement worth €120,000.
The court ruled that under the legal framework existing in 2008, the police could not continue prosecuting ex officio in a rape case that happened inside private property if the victim withdrew the complaint.
The law has since changed.
To be clear, Fr Said was not involved in the abuse of the 14-year-old girl and was never charged with wrongdoing. His involvement in the case was that of a broker, facilitating the financial settlement. His signature was also on the settlement agreement that had been drafted by a lawyer.
But there is also an important detail that cannot be ignored—Fr Said is related to three of the four men who were charged with abuse.
When the case resurfaced last March, the Gozo Diocese said it would be investigating the actions of Fr Said. Last week, the Gozo bishop informed us through a Facebook video that the investigations recommended “no canonical action” should be taken against the priest.
And yet, Teuma did acknowledge that the priest’s influence led the family to drop the police complaint and the priest had also signed the settlement agreement, along with others.
Teuma summed up the situation with these dry words: “Today, we say this intervention was not a wise decision and the priest realises this and states that today, he would have acted otherwise.”
Given that Teuma took it upon himself to speak on the priest’s behalf, our questions and criticism are directed towards him.
Who is the bishop trying to kid with his pathetic attempt at minimising the priest’s actions?
Rather than say the priest’s decision was ‘wrong’, the bishop called it ‘unwise’. Rather than apologise to the victim and her family, the bishop said the priest would ‘act otherwise’ today.
Rather than stick to the pastoral concerns Fr Said’s actions raise, the bishop also turned his guns on those who use the media, urging them to refrain from passing judgement without having all the facts at hand. It was a judicious observation but one that was totally out of place in a statement concerning such a grave case.
What Fr Michael Said did in 2008 when he used his pastoral influence on the family to convince them that it was best to take the money and drop the case was plainly wrong. He betrayed the trust the family put in him when they turned to him for guidance at a time when they were most vulnerable.
And given Fr Said’s family relations with some of the aggressors, his intervention is even more questionable.
Was Fr Said truly acting on what he thought was the best for the family and the victim, even if it was a warped way of looking at things?
Or was he acting in the best interest of his relatives?
We won’t wait for the bishop’s replies.
In his statement he never noted that Fr Said was related to the aggressors and instead opted to emphasise that it was the family of the victim that sought his help.
In the words of Victim Support Malta “money, influence or private arrangements must never prevent allegations, particularly those involving a child, from being heard by the courts”.
When this happens, accountability is avoided and those responsible can move on without consequences.
Unfortunately, in the bishop’s statement last week, we saw no penance for Fr Said’s disgusting behaviour. It was simply a slap in the face of sexual abuse victims.