Time to reactivate page 13

To my dismay, human right issues are no longer that topical. Erroneously, it seems to be felt that such matters have only to do with the past and are irrelevant in today's political reality. This perception, however, couldn't be further from the truth. Back in the 1980s, a de facto grouping of persons versed in legal matters used to get together in order to analyse alleged infringements by the government and the relative judicial outcomes. They would then make sure to communicate their reactions to all this in a very vociferous manner indeed.

Back then, whenever court action was taken, alleging a violation of somebody's inherent rights, it was regarded as something of national concern. I remember that, as a student, in those days, together with fellow colleagues I would occasionally attend court sittings dealing with intricate constitutional cases. I recall that these sittings were so well attended there was a time when the preceding judge would opt to transfer himself to the hall of the Criminal Court, which is far more spacious than the Civil Court halls, in order to accommodate all those present. At times, however, even this would not suffice and there would be an overflow of people in the corridors of the courts. This goes to show the attitude and importance the public used to give to such matters, and rightly so. Furthermore, when it was generally felt that the courts would be proving to be too compliant with regard to the Executive, people would not hesitate to express their disapproval even publicly. Definitely so, human rights were then considered a big deal.

It must be recalled that Allied Newspapers did take a leading role in the then ongoing saga aiming at the upholding of human rights on this island. In those days, it seemed to me that perhaps the most popular page read in was page 13 on The Sunday Times. In fact, page 13 became synonymous with human rights here in Malta. This page was dedicated entirely to matters regarding court litigation in this regard. Here, the outcome of all court proceedings relating to such matters was keenly followed and commented upon.

Nowadays we are experiencing a certain lack of interest and this is unfortunate since, undoubtedly, there's much to be said. A few months back, I had tabled a number of parliamentary questions requesting data and statistics regarding human rights cases. I had asked, for example, how many judgments were delivered in favour of the individual over a given number of years. Amazingly, the forthcoming reply was that the ministry does not deem it necessary to hold such data.

Furthermore, there exists no Parliamentary Committee that could bring to the attention of the House those instances where the courts would have affirmed the incompatibility of certain provisions of law with our Constitution or when the implication of certain particular judgments would entail the changing of certain legislation. Without Parliament's intervention, the former legislation would prevail because a judgment is binding only between the parties. This has led to the filing of unnecessary multiple cases on the same points of law.

Another form of judicial control over the government is the judicial review of executive decisions. The courts are endowed with the power to question the reasonableness of certain decisions. This judicial process is also aimed at upholding the inherent rights of our citizens. Even here, the government does not keep any form of official data regarding such cases.

In the past, much criticism aimed at our courts was actually addressed in relation to such genre of cases. The fact is that the courts in those days appeared far too reluctant and zealously over-cautious in deciding against the government. Undoubtedly, it would be interesting to verify whether, after all these years and after the dramatic change in the political scenario, things have actually changed.

Notwithstanding the lack of interest in all this, surely varied and copious has been the litigation over the last few years in respect of the issues already mentioned. The courts have been invited to tackle such delicate matters as the rights of transsexuals, succession and the validity of the government's requisition and acquisition orders, among many others. Yet, unfortunately, no one seems to be that much bothered with all this.

I feel that these highly-sensitive cases should indeed fall under greater public scrutiny because they directly affect the direction this country would be taking in certain areas. It is inopportune to ignore the courts' dealings in these highly-sensitive matters. Such scrutiny is, at the end of the day, all we have that can, in the final analysis, make our judiciary accountable.

In the light of all this, it definitely would not be a bad idea if, once more, Allied Newspapers would reactivate the initiative they had taken all those years ago and start dedicating a similar page, whether weekly or otherwise, to such matters. I am sure this would once again make fascinating reading and rekindle our lost fervour.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.