Proposed constitutional amendments on the Prosecutor General to be withdrawn

Justice Minister Austin Gatt said yesterday the government would withdraw proposed constitutional amendments involving the new Office of the Prosecutor General in view of disagreement with the opposition.

The amendments are part of a bill to amend the Attorney General and Counsel for the Republic (Constitution of Office) Ordinance.

Dr Gatt was reacting to remarks in parliament by opposition justice spokesman Anglu Farrugia, who had called for the committee debate on the bill to stop while talks were held with the opposition so that the bill could be overhauled. Constitutional amendments, he said, had always been preceded by agreement between both sides.

The minister said he had written to Dr Farrugia on February 22 inviting the opposition for talks on the bill, but Dr Farrugia had not even had the decency to reply. The government would therefore go ahead with the debate on the bill in parliament.

It was true that some of the clauses of the bill proposed to amend the constitution and needed the backing of two-thirds of the members of the House. However, the changes could also be made through ordinary legislation and once there was no opposition support for them, the government would move amendments to avoid the need for the support of two-thirds of the members of the House when the final vote on the bill was taken.

The bill provides for the setting up of the Office of Prosecutor General who, as originally proposed, would have been on a par with the Attorney General.

Dr Gatt said two months had been allowed to elapse before the bill was brought up for debate in second reading, and during that time the opposition had said nothing about it. When the second reading debate was held, the opposition`s position against it was clear. Therefore, once the bill was given the second reading he had written to Dr Farrugia inviting him for talks on the points that had been raised. But Dr Farrugia had not even bothered to reply in three months. So how could Dr Farrugia now ask for talks?

Dr Gatt said there was an urgent need for the Office of the Attorney General to be reformed, hence the need for this bill to become law.

The government would have wished to have the new Office of the Prosecutor General enshrined in the constitution, but once that could not happen, the change would be made only through ordinary legislation.

Dr Farrugia said he had consulted the Labour parliamentary group after receiving Dr Gatt`s letter. It was decided that the opposition`s stand would remain as specified in the second reading debate.

The opposition had insisted that the debate should stop and talks held between the two sides. The decent thing would have been for the government to withdraw this bill.

He had not been obliged to write back to the minister when he could reply in the House.

It was up to the government if it decided to proceed with the bill without amending the constitution. He was again asking the minister to reconsider.

Dr Gatt said he had nothing to add. The clauses relating to the constitution would be withdrawn.

Replying to questions, Dr Gatt said that once the constitution would not be amended, the Prosecutor General would work under the direction of the Attorney General, to whom the constitution assigned particular responsibilities.

But the Prosecutor General would work autonomously in areas which did not, in terms of the constitution, fall within the responsibilities of the Attorney General, such as representation of Malta abroad with regard to international treaties and conventions.

Dr Farrugia said that meant that the Prosecutor General would not enjoy full independence in his office. Because of the decision taken by the government, the Prosecutor General would not be protected by the constitution as was the case for the Attorney General.

Dr Gatt said decisions which needed independence as provided by the constitution, such as with regard to criminal cases, would continue to be taken under the responsibility of the Attorney General. It was, after all, the opposition which had objected to the constitutional amendments.

Malta would follow the Cypriot model where the Prosecutor General was administratively part of the Office of the Attorney General. The deputy attorney general, whose work was already focused on criminal prosecutions, would become Prosecutor General.

The government, however, would seek to continue reforms of the Office of the Attorney General to enable it to attract the staff it needed.

Dr Farrugia asked if the Prosecutor General would have the powers to stop court proceedings and prosecutions.

Dr Gatt said the Attorney General in terms of existing law could delegate any of his powers including the powers of prosecution. That power was currently delegated to the deputy attorney general and would henceforth be delegated to the Prosecutor General.