Editorial

A ruling by the Speaker of the House of Representatives shortly before the House rose for the summer recess was lost by many as the focus of parliamentary business was on the motion of no confidence in Roads Minister Jesmond Mugliett.

The Chair rejected a privilege complaint by Labour MP Joe Mizzi against lawyer Ian Spiteri Bailey and his client Alice Peplow after they wrote to Mr Mizzi following a speech he made in the House on the Malta Maritime Authority corruption allegations.

Dr Spiteri Bailey had said that Mr Mizzi had made serious allegations, insinuations and statements about his client which were untrue and which had caused her harm. Such problems, he said, could have been avoided had Mr Mizzi desisted from such comment without proper verification.

He said Ms Peplow recognised that Mr Mizzi enjoyed parliamentary privilege and was inviting him to exercise this right with prudence and respect for the citizen. She was also insisting that if Mr Mizzi did not wish to withdraw his allegations, he should repeat them outside the House so that she could institute court action.

Mr Mizzi raised a breach of privilege complaint. He argued that he exercised his privilege responsibly and had not made "insinuations". He also strongly complained that this was a threatening letter aimed at preventing him from performing his duties.

The Speaker, Anton Tabone, rejected the complaint, saying it had not been raised at the first available opportunity.

Mr Tabone added that "this letter should never have been sent, more so when its author is a lawyer". The House Privileges Ordinance was unequivocal and gave MPs the right to express themselves in the House in total freedom without anybody outside the House daring in any way to hinder, threaten or censure them, he continued.

Was the Chair, by this statement, saying that a private person mentioned in the House in the context of wrongdoing not able to write to the MP to deny the claims and ask for them to be repeated outside the House? The Chamber of Advocates certainly seems to think so. It wrote to the Speaker saying that: "Your declaration cannot but be interpreted as meaning that no citizen, even through his lawyer, may address an MP in connection with a declaration made by the MP about this same citizen". The Chamber of Advocates was right to argue that for an MP to be asked to divest himself of parliamentary privilege was not considered as being an attempt to hinder, threaten or censure him, but a means to strengthen the democratic process. It also said that the position expressed by the Chair needed to be given an interpretation that was more consonant with current times.

Clearly times have changed. The people expect their MPs to be more accountable, and certainly less touchy when they are asked to explain their actions. Over the years both the House and the courts have moved in this direction. The House is no longer judge and jury in privilege cases and both court sentences and rulings by the Chair have widened the limits of responsible criticism of MPs.

The comments in the latest ruling, which referred to Dr Spiteri Bailey's letter as a whole and not parts of it, risk pushing the clock back. When the complaint was made, the Leader of the House, Tonio Borg, cautioned that preventing citizens from asking MPs to repeat their comments outside the House could be seen as restricting the right to information. He was right.