The opposition’s attempt to force a parliamentary debate on two resignation motions may not succeed if a past ruling by the Speaker is anything to go by.
On Thursday, Labour Whip Joe Mizzi presented two adjournment motions calling for the immediate discussion of two pending motions for the resignation of Justice Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici and of Malta’s EU ambassador Richard Cachia Caruana.
The adjournment motions could come up for discussion next Monday but the process is not automatic.
Historical irony may scupper the Labour Party’s efforts: in 1998 Speaker Miriam Spiteri Debono ruled that “no amendment can be moved to an adjournment motion”.
An adjournment motion is routinely presented by the Leader of the House at the end of every sitting announcing the date of the next session and the agenda.
Speaker Michael Frendo is understood to be seeking legal advice on whether Mr Mizzi’s motions will be admissible according to parliamentary practice.
Parliament faced similar circumstances in 1998 when the Labour government’s one-seat majority was continuously threatened by the antics of former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff.
Then opposition leader Eddie Fenech Adami had moved an adjournment motion to force the resumption of a debate, which had started eight months before, on the island’s relations with the EU.
He had argued that parliamentary practice allowed MPs to propose amendments to an adjournment motion.
The exception, he had said, was a ruling by then-Speaker Lawrence Gonzi – today on the other side – who ruled that an amendment could not be moved if the motion referred to an adjournment sine die (without a fixed date).
Dr Fenech Adami quoted from Erskine May, the bible of parliamentary procedure, saying that an adjournment motion could only be moved if it related to the term of the adjournment and that was what he was proposing.
But then Foreign Minister George Vella objected to the procedure, which he described as “out of order” and asked the Speaker to rule on the matter.
After a 10-minute deliberation, the Speaker ruled the adjournment motion could not be amended and, quoting from Erskine May, she said the only exception was allowed to ministers and not ordinary MPs.
In what is a classic reversal of today’s roles, Dr Fenech Adami accepted the Speaker’s ruling but insisted that by not being allowed to put forward such a motion Parliament was reduced to debating “only what the government wanted”.
It is the same accusation today’s Nationalist government is facing from the Labour Party.
The opposition’s motion censuring Dr Mifsud Bonnici was presented last year and had to be debated and voted on in January.
But the government has postponed the potentially embarrassing predicament after surviving a no-confidence vote on the strength of the Speaker’s casting vote in January.
Nationalist backbencher Franco Debono’s abstention on the no-confidence motion shook the government to the core and no vote has been taken in Parliament since.
The government faces a legal deadline on a money Bill that implements the Budget measures, which needs to be approved by May 14.
This week Dr Gonzi announced that a vote on the Bill would be taken on May 9 amid uncertainty on how Dr Debono would vote.
The backbencher insisted he wanted the Labour justice motion and his own motion discussing police and court reforms to come on the agenda before the Budget Bill. He has not said why.
Dr Debono has long been critical of Dr Mifsud Bonnici’s handling of the justice and home affairs portfolios. In January the Minister lost justice in a mini-reshuffle, which did little to placate the MP – he had been clamouring for the two portfolios to be split.
Unlike the money Bill, the motion of no confidence in Dr Mifsud Bonnici has no legal implications for the government’s survival but it would be hugely embarrassing if Dr Gonzi lost a minister in this way.