To cast or not to cast . . .

The motion of no-confidence was yesterday defeated with the Speaker’s casting vote after 34 MPs voted in favour, 34 against and Nationalist backbencher Franco Debono abstained.

According to constitutional law expert Ian Refalo, the Constitution made it clear that the Speaker had to exercise his casting vote if the result was tied.

“The Constitution makes no difference whether the tied vote is a motion of no-confidence or an ordinary vote,” Prof. Refalo said.

But this opinion contradicts that of his colleague, Austin Bencini, who had argued this week that the Speaker’s casting vote was not required if Dr Debono abstained.

This argument is premised on the fact that the Constitution also says that a no-confidence motion has to garner a majority of all MPs and not simply a majority of those present and voting. With 69 MPs, the no-confidence motion would have required 35 votes in favour to be carried.

“Whichever interpretation is given to the Speaker’s ruling to use his casting vote, the figure of 35, as the number required for the no-confidence motion to be carried, remains constant and so, in effect, the matter becomes purely academic,” Dr Bencini said.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Michael Frendo, had no qualms about his decision yesterday: “I had a clear constitutional obligation to use the casting vote but I also had expert advice on the matter.”

Before using the casting vote, Dr Frendo referred to article 71 of the Constitution and Parliament’s Standing Orders to motivate his decision.

Basing himself on parliamentary practice as dictated by the Erskine May, Dr Frendo voted against the motion to “allow more space for discussion”.

ksansone@timesofmalta.com