In 2007 the government enacted a law relating to legal organisations and legal personality which appears in the Second Schedule to our Civil Code. This is an umbrella law on all legal organisations and applies where there is no special law on a type of organisation or purpose.
The suggestion that political parties are not regulated by any law is incorrect- Max Ganado
So the starting point is that if there is no special law on the legal form which political parties take, then the provisions of the Second Schedule will apply. Furthermore, if there is no special law on the purpose of these organisations, then these provisions will apply.
We have, for instance, a special law on sports organisations which will prevail over the general law in the Civil Code. In this case we have no law on organisations with political purposes; namely, the achievement of public good through the participation in politics and the achievement of a mandate in democratic elections for the relevant national and local bodies, so the Second Schedule applies.
Political parties are associations of people who unite for such a purpose. There are many provisions in the Second Schedule regulating such organisations, too many to summarise, but the ones being mentioned in the discussion at the moment are the duty to keep accounts. This very duty is regulated by article 10 of the Second Schedule, which states that administrators of all organisations must keep accounts, in a form and with content as may be prescribed.
So all that has to be enacted is a legal notice which prescribes the form and content of accounts which need to be maintained, but the duty to prepare accounts is already there and, absent regulations, administrators are responsible for choosing the appropriate form and content. I have absolutely no doubt that all political parties do this already.
There is another important point to be made. The same legislative effort addressed those organisations which are voluntary (that is, organisations which are non-profit making and have a lawful purpose which may include a social purpose) and these are regulated by the Voluntary Organisations Act. This Act is the umbrella law for the voluntary and non-profit sector.
“Social purposes” are defined in this law and include the purposes of political parties under the heading of social and community advancement and the promotion of democracy. Maltese political parties would qualify as voluntary organisations as they have such purposes, are presumably non-profit, and are supported by voluntary efforts and donations.
There is therefore a special law which does apply to their purposes and therefore, again, the suggestion that political parties are not regulated by any law is incorrect.
There is indeed a regulatory regime which exists and it is even supplemented by regulations on the form and content of accounts. These regulations are called the Voluntary Organisations (Annual Returns and Annual Accounts) Regulations 2012 and they apply to all enrolled voluntary organisations.
Assuming the major political parties would not wish to enrol as they both shy away from transparency, all one has to do is extend these regulations to non-enrolled organisations and insert a rule on what accounts and reports are needed for non-enrolled organisations.
Of course, these would be more demanding than for enrolled organisations, which by definition have subscribed to a transparent status. The minister has an express power to issue such regulations in the Act.
The minister even has powers to issue regulations on how political parties, as voluntary organisations, raise funds and can, quite easily, impose any conditions which are being suggested at the moment.
All this was done by the Nationalist Party in government, which is unjustly being criticised for not addressing the issue by one of its own members, who, although being the chairman of a House Committee on the consolidation of laws, seems to be opting for a special law replicating a lot of what there already exists, rather than encouraging the issue of simple regulations, naturally with the same central ideas.
The opposition is keeping silent on the matter. Dom Mintoff passed a notorious law on public collections, in 1981, and exempted political parties from that law.
Both Mintoff and the current government realised that the issue of transparency in fundraising needs cross-party consent. The political parties are, of course, wrong in resisting this development, but Franco Debono is unjustly pressuring his own party to do something about it when the other side of the political divide is keeping silent on the issue.
While he may succeed with the Nationalist Party, it is nonsense to introduce transparency when the other major party is not hinting that it is remotely in favour of it. This is where our President may possibly play a role, as some time or another our political parties need to sign up to the right standards. The solution has to come from the outside.
This is therefore a humble appeal to those involved in this debate to make sure they keep in view the existing laws of Malta and make an effort to build on what we have, rather than seek bespoke solutions which would only replicate what there is and create even more confusion and discrimination among organisations of a similar type.
They should focus on what the law does not yet address, and let’s seek progress on the one relevant issue rather than throw tens of issues into the debate and ensure that no progress is made at all.