Nationalist MP Franco Debono this morning criticised the reference to Pietru Pawl Busuttil made by Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici in yesterday's speech at the PN general council.
In his address to the council, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that the PL had not changed in 25 years and it was continuing to make false charges against innocent people, as it had done to Pietru Pawl Busuttil.
But interjecting during a speech in parliament by Labour MP Owen Bonnici, Franco Debono criticised the minister's reference.
It was shamemful, he said, that Dr Mifsud Bonnici yesterday invoked the case of Pietru Pawl Busuttil. Twenty years after what happened to Mr Busuttil, Dr Mifsud Bonnici had been colluding with the Opposition not to introduce the fundamental right of legal assistance to arrested persons, which would have been the greatest monument to Pietru Pawl Busuttil's ordeal, Dr Debono said.
(See minister's remarks here )
Earlier, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said that remarks by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo on Thursday about the death of Nicholas Azzopardi while under police custody, particularly his remarks on the outcome of two inquiries, were an attack on the independence of the judiciary.
Such criticism, he said, was in stark contrast to Opposition claims that it was the government which interfered in the judiciary.
Thursday's remarks, he said, were also an unfair attack on the police.
Dr Borg was speaking in parliament during the debate on the censure motion against Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici.
He said that Mr Bartolo had turned a human tragedy into a political case against Dr Mifsud Bonnici. But the minister, who had just been appointed when this case took place, had ordered two inquiries, one led by magistrate, another by a judge.
Both inquiries came to a completely different conclusion than Mr Bartolo's. This did not mean that if the people involved had other measures they could not adopt them if they wanted, but to blame Dr Mifsud Bonnici did not make sense.
See Mr Bartolo's remarks here
Speaking on the motion, Dr Borg said it was based on many mistaken premises, some of which were vile and could not be believed.
He described Dr Mifsud Bonnici as an honest colleague and said that the PL’s attack on him was also an attack on the country’s forces of law and order.
Dr Borg said that the government had reformed the police and judicial system from top to bottom. It also improved police detention facilities, something that was even noted in the Committee for the Prevention of Torture report.
Dr Borg criticised the PL’s motion for speaking on issues, such as expropriation, which Dr Mifsud Bonnici had nothing to do with. The motion had been hastily written with its only purpose being to blame the minister.
Another vile accusation in the motion was on mandatory arbitration. This had initially been proposed by Labour but it was moved by a PN government and Labour then turned against it. It was now also being adopted by Italy.
Turning to criticism that the minister had not amended laws which were struck down by the Constitutional Court, Dr Borg said the uncertainty was not caused by the minister but by the court which within a year gave conflicting sentences.
But the worst accusation in the motion was that was on court delays. Court delays started well before the minister's appointment and he actually had a remarkable record of cutting down the number of pending cases by taking measures which the PL had fought tooth and nail.
One such reform was that of the official letter in non-contested cases making this as valid as a judgement. When the PN government introduced it, it had been accused of attacking the independence of the judiciary.
This had now become a regular feature in Maltese courts and its biggest critic Jose Herrera was now in its favour.
Dr Mifsud Bonnici, Dr Borg said, had moved 18 laws on justice and home affairs, including on the protection of minors.
Turning to home affairs, he said that the police were having a continuous story of success in drug hauls. He tabled a list showing the amount of drugs that had been found. Dr Borg said that 480 people had been arrested in drug related cases and 429 judgements were given.
This government also built the Yours Section to separate young prisoners from older ones.
Dr Borg concluded that the motion was unjust and should be rejected. It was based on false premises and was heavy in political hypocrisy. Minister Mifsud Bonnici, he said, worked hard and deserved the support of the House.
'GOVERNMENT IGNORING POLICE PROBLEMS IN GOZO'
Today's debate was opened by Labour MP Justyne Caruana who said the government was ignoring the problems which the police had in Gozo, where they were lacking 'everything'.
None of the police sections were adequately equipped. Even the lock-up lacked proper facilities. Especially serious was the fact that the police were undermanned. The most serious issue was the poor state of the Drug Squad while drugs flowed into Gozo.
She said all the members of the police did their duty but they needed better resources including training, equipment and facilities.
The Labour MP also complained about poor resources at the law courts in Gozo, with particular problems in the Family Court, the child advocate service and on site inquiries. The courts in Gozo lacked the dignity they deserved and despite the matter having been raised in a motion in parliament, progress on the ground still had to be seen.
The people's frustration and concerns at such a poor situation was enough for the responsible minister to be censured by the House, she said.
MINISTER WHO CAN FACE DIFFICULTIES - MP
Nationalist MP Peter Micallef described Dr Mifsud Bonnici as a man integrity and of principle, who faced difficulties but not to the detriment of his principles and who he did not give in to pressure.
He said it was important to have people like him for whom black was black and white was white.
Dr Micallef referred to the reform Dr Mifsud Bonnici carried out in the fireworks sector saying the minister was proactive and took the necessary steps to cut down abuse. He increased controls but not to the detriment of the industry.
The minister took a position which proved that for him human life came first and foremost and increased fines, introduced new crimes, gave court new more effective powers and increased police power.
MOTION FUELLED BY THIRST FOR POWER
Charlo' Bonnici (PN) said this motion was aimed at hurting the government, but its consequence was that it was hurting a well-respected minister and his family. Edwin Vassallo was right to say this was a motion that was morally wrong. Labour had opted for what was wrong over what was right because, for it, the end justified the means.
This motion was only being moved because of the current political situation. This was a case of political opportunism fuelled by a thirst for power.
Mr Bonnici expressed solidarity with Dr Mifsud Bonnici describing him as exemplary. ‘An attack on him is an attack on us all’, he said.
Mr Bonnici praised the minister for his work in various sectors, including illegal immigration, which had led to the introduction of the concept of burden-sharing. The minister's efforts had led to hundreds of migrants being repatriated and for Malta to get assistance to handle the migrants who remained here.
Turning to the police, Mr Bonnici said that under Dr Mifsud Bonnici, the police force became a stronger shield for society. He had ensured that the police were better trained and prepared. The crime rate had gone down and the police had made record drug hauls.
The Nationalist MP lauded the minister for his legislation to protect children from crime, particularly sex crimes. His work included the setting up of the child offenders’ register.
'MINISTER HAS DUTY TO BOW TO WILL OF THE HOUSE'
Labour MP Owen Bonnici said the motion was about the concept that everyone, including ministers was subject to scrutiny, checks and balances.
The power to choose people to be ministers was the Prime Minister’s alone but the time a person served in that position was not just the PM’s but also Parliament’s if the latter decided that a particular minister should be censured.
God forbid there came a time when the majority of the House said one thing and another organ in the country said otherwise.
If this happened in the past it was wrong and now that the country was more mature it was wrong to try to find legal arguments to overturn what this House ordered. Only the Constitution could overturn such decisions.
Dr Bonnici also referred to ministers’ code of ethics which, he said, bound everyone, including the PM.
This said that every minister was responsible towards Parliament for all that was done during the execution of his duty. Although this concept was political in nature, it was crystallised in writing in the code of ethics.
Ministers were obliged to inform, apologise and if need be resign from Parliament.
In the motion being debated, the House was requesting a minister to be censured and if it was approved the minister had the duty to bow his head to the will of the House. This was the gentlemanly and the right thing to do.
Dr Bonnici criticised the government for opting not to introduce into law the right for an accused not to be assisted by a lawyer.
With Dr Bonnici’s permission, Franco Debono said he agreed with Dr Bonnici and noted that it was shameful that Dr Mifsud Bonnici yesterday invoked the case of Pietru Pawl Busuttil when addressing the PN’s general council. He said that after 20 years from what happened to Mr Busuttil, Dr Mifsud Bonnici had been colluding with the Opposition not to introduce the fundamental right of legal assistance to arrested persons, which would have been the greatest monument to Pietru Pawl Busuttil's ordeal.
Dr Bonnici said that the minister’s shortcoming had led some accused to be freed because they had been deprived of their right.
He also spoke on arbitration and said the PL wanted the Arbitration Centre to be strong for certain cases to be brought to Malta, where there were good thinkers and competent jurors.
However, it was against mandatory arbitration depriving people from the right of going to court if they so wanted.
There were judgements which said this could not be done. People should have the right to choose and he hoped that after the most recent judgement the decisions taken by the Arbitration Centre would not be declared null.
MOTION'S SOLE AIM IS TO ELIMINATE MINISTER
Nationalist MP Joseph Falzon said that the motion showed a clear lack of vision because it did not make any proposals on what needed to be changed. Its only aim was to eliminate Minister Mifsud Bonnici.
One should not lose his integrity with a Parliamentary vote and the people knew that the minister was a victim. The injustice was that this was happening in the justice ministry.
The opposition was full of contradictions in the sector. He would have expected such a motion if the country was drowning in criminality but not when it was one of the safest countries in Europe.
Whatever the result of the motion, nothing would put the minister to shame. His work over the years reflected his integrity and principles and the people knew that the motion was only instigated by those who wanted to take his place.
DO NOT VOTE WITH THE OPPOSITION, MP TELLS COLLEAGUE
Nationalist MP Jean Pierre Farrugia referred to the motion’s reference to the family court and said that in 2011 there were 1,000 births outside marriage. So to expect the country’s structures not to have bottlenecks when society was changing in this way was superficial and irresponsible.
Confidence in the police always grew under Nationalist governments. This did not mean there were no problems but if one compared both Malta to other countries as well as Malta now to Malta in the past, it was easy to see that great strides forward had been made.
On immigration, Dr Farrugia said that he never heard the present Labour Party speak about the rights of immigrants and their right to a decent living.
Malta had saved more than 14,000 people from drowning, did its utmost to repatriate and re-allocate wherever it could and gave the immigrants who deserved refugee status. In centres, immigrants were being empowered by being taught English and IT.
Dr Farrugia said that yet again, the opposition had moved a motion because a government MP was critical of the government.
He ended with an appeal to Franco Debono not to vote with the opposition saying that when other Nationalist MPs were critical of the government and the opposition had tried to use them, they had still not voted with the opposition, which was not sincere.