PM to be empowered to strike off unconstitutional legislation

The Prime Minister is being given the authority to delete from legislation any sections found in final judgement to be inconsistent with the Constitution or the European Convention of Human Rights.

The new authority is being given under amendments to the European Convention Act which started being debated in Parliament yesterday.

Justice Minister Tonio Borg explained that the power of the Prime Minister, exercisable within six months of the relative judgment by the Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights, was restricted only to removing, and not substituting, the relative inconsistencies.

Should the relevant law need to be amended, a Bill would have to be moved in Parliament.

Dr Borg said there could be instances where this new authority could not be used because a substitution would be required.

Anglu Farrugia, Opposition spokesman on justice, spoke on how human rights legislation had evolved over the years. He also criticised the government for not having always implemented the decisions of the Injustices Tribunal set up by the Labour government, saying there should not be discrimination in the administration of justice. These decisions, he said, would be implemented by a future Labour government within a week of taking office.

He said the opposition would be voting in favour of this Bill, which was in quantum leap in favour of human rights.

He felt that when a human rights case was awaiting final judgment in the Maltese courts, and a similar case was about to be decided in Strasbourg, the Maltese courts should await the outcome of the European Court case.

Dr Farrugia observed that this Bill did not make it mandatory on the Prime Minister to strike off those aspects of legislation which were inconsistent with the human rights convention. Nor did the Bill provide that when the Prime Minister did not exercise this power, Parliament would act to rectify matters.

The opposition felt Parliament should be able to act on the basis of a private motion, to amend the law in question when the Prime Minister did not act.

Otherwise one could end up having no change from the current situation where Parliament was informed of Constitutional Court decisions finding the laws unconstitutional and doing nothing about them.

The Labour MP said it would be useless amending the laws unless justice was administered promptly, fairly and transparently. The decisions of the court needed to be respected, and there should be a collective effort to further improve human rights by giving greater rights for individuals to file court action whenever basic rights were violated, even when they did not have a direct interest.

Malta needed to be ahead of other countries in the defence of human rights.

One needed to act to prevent human rights violations in the first place. It was not enough to give financial compensation for the violation of fundamental freedoms.

While this Bill was positive, the opposition wanted to see all limits lifted on the application of human rights. Malta should, therefore, build on this legislation for a stronger democracy and a better enjoyment of human rights.

It was very telling that last April the Commission for the Administration of Justice, chaired by the President, had agreed with the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights who had criticised the government over the way many court cases were ending up before non-professional judges. The government seemed to be determined to carry on with its ways of administering justice, and the opposition would therefore protest to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.