Judge urges Parliament to consider plight of blind voters

A request filed by associations representing the visually impaired and the blind has been dismissed by the courts after the presiding judge ruled he was not empowered to review decisions taken by the Electoral Commission.

Francis Tirchett, Kevin Cutajar and Joseph Stafrace filed their application in their personal names and on behalf of the associations they represented, namely the Malta Society of the Blind, Gozo Aid for the Visually Impaired and Torball Society for the Blind.

The application was filed against the Electoral Commission and against the Attorney General.

The men, who said they were blind, told the court the commission had failed in the course of the 2003 general election and the 2004 European Parliament election to provide them with a suitable voting system.

On the contrary, the men claimed that the commission had failed to come up with a system that ensured they could vote in secret and this because visually impaired persons could only vote with the assistance of third parties. This constituted degrading and inhuman treatment and was also discriminatory in their regard.

They requested the court to establish a time limit within which the commission and the Attorney General would provide them with a suitable voting system.

The court was also asked to award the three men and their associations compensation. The Attorney General pleaded that he ought not to have been sued and this plea was upheld by Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court.

On its part, the Electoral Commission pleaded that the courts did not have jurisdiction to hear and decide upon the case and that jurisdiction only existed on constitutional issues.

When examining the merits of the case, Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco pointed out that this case had not been filed as a constitutional application. The men and their associations had claimed there was a violation of the Equal Opportunities (Persons with Disability) Act due to conflict with the General Elections Act. If two laws were apparently in conflict, the judge had to take a logical approach to the problem.

The men had requested the court to annul provisions of the General Elections Act but this could not be done on the basis of an apparent conflict with another law unless it was obvious that this was the intention of the legislator.

This was not the case here. The General Elections Act was a specific law regulating the manner in which elections were to be conducted. The law granting protection against discrimination to persons with a disability was a general law.

The court could not, therefore, decide upon the application filed before it. The manner in which persons with a disability voted was regulated by the Constitution and by the General Elections Act and the Electoral Commission did not have the authority to provide an alternative method of voting.

Despite dismissing the application, the court declared that it sympathised with persons such as the three men and others like them and suggested that the House of Representatives ought to seek a solution to their issue.

The court therefore requested the Speaker of the House to examine the problem.