Mattarella’s comments on the Roggero case are not merely a matter of method: they are also political

The rebuke was not a formal one: it was, above all, political. In receiving Carlo Nordio at the Quirinale yesterday, Sergio Mattarella set the record straight on a matter that the government had begun to handle with too much haste and too much casualness. A pardon is a prerogative of the President of the Republic. The Minister of Justice may conduct the preliminary investigation, forward the case files and express opinions, but cannot act as though the decision were his to make. And when the application is not submitted by the convicted person, the initiative may come directly from the Head of State. This is the point highlighted by the Constitutional Court and now reiterated by the Quirinale. There is also an even simpler issue. In the Roggero case, the Supreme Court has not yet published the grounds for its judgement. Before discussing a pardon, one should at least be aware of the reasons behind the final judgement and understand whether there are grounds sufficient to justify such an exceptional measure. At present, these reasons are unknown. Announcing a possible pardon before even knowing them amounts to turning an extremely sensitive power into a tool of propaganda.

It is also difficult not to see Nordio’s initiative as a political manoeuvre. Meloni did not want to leave Salvini and Vannacci with a monopoly on the campaign in defence of the jeweller (sentenced by the Court of Cassation to 14 years and 9 months for the killing of two robbers and the wounding of a third man following the raid on his shop) and tried to take ownership of that battle through the minister. But the attempt ends up undermining the very idea of the right that the government claims to represent. A law-abiding right should distinguish between self-defence and revenge. Roggero was not convicted for defending himself during the robbery, but for chasing and killing people who were fleeing. Yesterday, Mattarella highlighted two points. Directly, that each institution must respect its own limits. Indirectly, that security is not safeguarded by confusing justice with the Wild West. A useful lesson, especially for those in government.