The Opposition has presented a private members' motion in parliament demanding that political responsibility be assumed for 'endemic problems' in the sectors falling under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs.
The motion comes hard on the heels of a wide-ranging motion presented less than two weeks ago by Nationalist MP Franco Debono, which is still pending, and after the prime minister had already declared that he would split the justice and home affairs portfolio.
In comments to timesofmalta.com this evening Dr Debono said he will support the government when the Opposition motion comes before the House.
"I will support the Prime Minister, who has already declared that shortcomings in the justice sector will be addressed, Dr Debono said.
The Opposition motion was presented by Jose' Herrera, Opposition spokesman for Justice and Michael Falzon, Opposition spokesman for Home Affairs.
The motion says the the sectors of justice and home affairs are 'inundated with endemic problems' as was also pointed out by interested parties and even members of the government.
Among the main problems was the conflict of priorities between justice and home affairs.
A consequence of this conflict was the delay by the government to bring into force the amendments to the law on legal assistance to people under investigation.
The motion notes that there was no official reaction to the real possibility that even the law, as it is, might still not conform to human rights as laid down in EU directive of July 20, 2010.It points out that the government had said that the police force first needed to be strengthened, such as through the procurement of a new DNA machine, but this machine had still not been bought.
The motion expresses concern that Constitutional matters involving human rights were not being tackled with the urgency they deserved, even after they were raised in the Constitutional Court and the European Court.
Among these issues were those raised in the cases Lorry Gatt vs Malta on the computation of judicial guarantees, Joanne Cassar vs Malta on the rights of transsexuals, Ruth Debono Sultana vs the Department of Social Standards on discrimination in adoptions; Amato Gauci vs Malta and Fleri Soler vs Malta on property issues; Farrugia vs Commission of Land on expropriation; Josephine Bugeja vs Attorney General on redemption of emphyteusis; Anthony Grech vs Claire Calleja and H.Vassallo & Sons vs Attorney General on mandatory arbitration and other cases.
The notion expressed concern that the controversy over mandatory arbitration may have dire consequences, with hundreds of cases left pending after the Constitutional Court declared this law to be unconstitutional. Although amendments had been moved to the law on insistence of the Opposition, the amendments had still not been brought into force.
The motion also expresses concern about conflict between the judiciary and the executive, which had led the members of the judiciary boycott two national events.
It says that comments attributable to the members of the judiciary about political nepotism being extremely serious and meriting explanation from the government.
Criminal Code
The motion calls for urgent reforms on various aspects of the Criminal Code, including amendments made recently, but it does not go into specifics. It says some of the amendments were made haphazardly after the outcome of certain criminal cases, and they may impact on human rights.
It was unacceptable, the motion says, that the minister moved a comprehensive Bill on amendments after pressure by one of its back benchers.
The motion criticises the government for failing to adequately address the problem of court delays, as confirmed in a recent statement by the Chamber of Advocates.
Whistle-blower Act
The motion notes delays in the enactment of the Whistle-blower Act and says the prepared Bill is defective.
It expresses concern that some persons were freed of serious charges after police statements and other documents were not found.
It complains of lack of investment in the Malta National Laboratory, where forensic tests are carried out.
It also criticises the government for not giving enough importance to legal aid; delays in the publication of degrees by the Family Court, delays in marriage separation and annulment cases; and delays in the enactment of the Bill on reparative Justice.
The motion criticises the government over the presence of drugs at the prisons and expresses concern that it took months for a new Director of Prisons to be appointed.
The motion criticises the government for not announcing what measures it would take to avoid a repetition of the recent uprising at the Detention Centre.
The motion also complains of a lack of surveillance of places frequented by young people such as Paceville and Swieqi.
The motion says that in view of the above the House should censure whoever was responsible and insist that political responsibility should be shouldered.