Updated: Impeachment motions against two judges presented
Last updated 12.35 p.m.
Motions for the impeachment of judges Ray Pace and Lino Farrugia Sacco were presented to parliament today, the Prime Minister said this morning.
Dr Gonzi's comments came after an emergency Cabinet meeting this morning which discussed the possible impeachment of the two judges.
The prime minister had warned that the government was prepared to move impeachment motions if the judges did not resign.
The Opposition reiterated this morning that it backed impeachment of Mr Justice Pace, who was taken to court on Thursday and accused of bribery and trading in influence. He is being held in custody.
On Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco, the Opposition said Labour would follow the recommendations of the Council for the Administration of Justice. The judge, who heads the Malta Olympic Committee, was named by the Ethics Committee of the International Olympic Committee in an investigation into the sale of tickets for the Winter Olympics
Impeachment motions are considered by the Council for the Administration of Justice before being debated and voted on in Parliament.
An impeachment motion needs to be backed by two-thirds of the members of the House to be considered approved.
Dr Gonzi said that according to procedure, the motions would not be published but they had been presented to the Speaker who will pass them on to the Council for its consideration and recommendations.
Should either of the judges resign, the procedures against him will be discontinued.
Dr Gonzi said that if the Commission makes its recommendations after the dissolution of Parliament on January 7, he would still asked for Parliament to be summoned in order for the motions to be voted on.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
32 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
carmel muscat
Dec 15th 2012, 17:56
mux ahjar ma nitfaw tajn fuq hadt ghax kullhadt qied taht saqaf wiehed u dak li ma grallikx illum lijlek jew lil qrabatek jista jigrijlek ghada -- - - - - -- -
Christian Sciberras
Dec 15th 2012, 20:03
Carmel, we're not all hypocrites. If any relative of mine erred, I won't hide it from the law.
Robert Cassar
Dec 15th 2012, 16:09
what has this anything to do with Franco Debono? Moreover the opposition has already declared that she will back any procedures taken against these two Judges!!!
E Gatt
Dec 15th 2012, 15:56
An impeachment needs the backing of 2/3 of the house, so Franco Debono's vote will likely be irrelevant.
Having said that, F Debono might use this as his last opportunity in parliament to give us an "it's all about me" ranting.
Nicola Farrugia
Dec 15th 2012, 15:23
What government? The government has lost a vote of confidence and has no right to represent the Maltese nation, in Malta or abroad. It was no use prolonging the election date, this government should have resigned when the vote of confidence did not pass. This time around it is the PN that is governing against the will of the voters: what goes around comes around.
Mr T Zahra
Dec 15th 2012, 15:01
Reading most comments here especially the one posted by Lawrence Fenech...I am now totally convinced that we are living in an idiocracy!!
Joe Grech
Dec 16th 2012, 10:55
But don't you see that the reform of the legal system is precisely the area that Debono has been insisting needs most reform so these events play right into his hands. If Debono has the chance to speak on this issue in Parliament, things will get very hot for Gonzi, with all his failings laid out for all to see. It looks like Debono may yet get his biggest scalp of all - Gonzi's days are numbered.
Emanuele Grimaldi
Dec 15th 2012, 14:52
They should fall under PSC just like all other public servants. These people are always above the law when they are accountable to nobody!
Lawrence Fenech
Dec 15th 2012, 14:05
Dr. Franco Debono issa uri lil GonzPN li mintix "irrilevanti" u li fil parliament ghandek sahha daqs Gonzi u aktar mis second division Simon.
Stannis Baratheon
Dec 15th 2012, 15:48
What does franco's personal issue with Gonzi has to do with what those judges are guilty of? The ignorance of some people seems to know no bounds.
H Zammit
Dec 15th 2012, 16:12
We will see tonight , if Simon is second division.
Joseph Micallef
Dec 15th 2012, 12:37
Is Gonzi expecting Dr. Franco Debono to vote for his motion? If he is irrelevant? How can Gonzi expect support from an irrelevant MP?
Hope that my question is relevant.
Edward Zammit
Dec 15th 2012, 13:11
Yes, Franco Debono is irrelevant all the way including in this matter as the motion/s needs two thirds majority in Parliament. It is only the Labour/Socialist party that has to show respect to the rest of the Judiciary, who are upright, most of whom adhere to the Code of Ethics, to vote in favour of the impeachments for the removal of the two judges.
E. Vassallo
Dec 15th 2012, 13:12
This is a question of national interest and not on a point of principle. However, it seems that Franco Debono has become very relevant to his new party, MLP, with even him substituting his party leader.
Joseph Micallef
Dec 15th 2012, 13:22
Prosit talli dahhaqtna wadha dalghodu E. Vassallo. Kif ma tithajrux taghjruh 'traditur' ukoll? Forsi uzajtu kelma differenti milli kienet intuzat qabel... din id-darba 'irrelevanti'. Anzi ma tisthux tghajjru lil wiehed li, li kieku ma kienx hu, ma kontux tititlaw fil-gvern. Nfakkar id-differenza mizera li tela biha GonziPN. Ara vera ma tisthux ta. Wicckom il-vera qaghad.
J Martinelli
Dec 15th 2012, 13:23
Mr Micallef, Debono's vote will be irrelevant if Joseph keeps his word regarding Pace's impeachment.
With regard to Farrugia Sacco, Joseph vacillates and wants the CAJ's shoulder to lean on. One wonders why?
Your question is as irrelevant as Debono is. Don't forget the adage 'empty vessels make most sound'. The closer Jan 7 nears, the louder he will get. Then, finally, we'll have peace, amen!
Alfred Dimech
Dec 15th 2012, 13:27
Do you honestly believe the opposition would be stupid enough not to vote in favour of the impeachment?
Rita Dimech Portelli
Dec 15th 2012, 13:53
Actually, no I think your question IS irrelevant, like Franco Debono. Didn#t you know that parliament needs two thirds majority for this?
John Attard
Dec 15th 2012, 14:16
Franco is not relevant at all in an impeachment motion. Two thirds of the house need to approve such motion. Franco is a part of history
Stannis Baratheon
Dec 15th 2012, 15:52
Joseph Micallef - Thank you for using yourself as an example, to show the rest of us exactly the definition of what it means to be completely politically blinded, do, act and dance exactly the same way your leader demands you to.
This is an issue which involves wrongdoings of 2 judges, no politics involved. Even your leader will vote in favor.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 15th 2012, 16:56
@EVassallo
In what way is a question of national importance different from one of principle?
Mario Tabone
Dec 15th 2012, 18:35
As usual Mr Micallef......your comment is once again irrelevant !!!
The government only needs 2/3 of the votes for the motion to pass .
Anthony Arpa
Dec 15th 2012, 11:56
Din vera tidher stramba..imma kulhadd jaf li il-parlament ufficjalment se jigi xolt fis 7 ta Jaanar u ghalekk nahseb dan tista issier ... u la il PL accetta u qabel ma dan nahseb li kollox hu skont il ligijiet tal pajjiez ...
A M Bonello
Dec 15th 2012, 11:49
This is not a good European image for Malta!
Jay Oatmon
Dec 15th 2012, 10:21
Too much protection for judges in Malta - they are almost always just above the law !
V. Cauchi
Dec 15th 2012, 10:11
Two questions readily come to mind: 1. Would govt find the Opposition's cooperation following yesterday's gaffe starting off what now looks like a vicious electoral campaign? 2. If lengthy procedures, with adequate presentation of evidence and the granting of full legal rights, are not concluded within this legislature, can they be constitutionally continued in a new legislature?
John Attard
Dec 15th 2012, 14:17
Hehe yesterday was not only a gaffe but labour of sixty years ago!
Lino Apap
Dec 15th 2012, 15:09
Actually, yesterday's was a gaffe of KMBionic proportions lol :-)
Peter Murray
Dec 15th 2012, 10:05
the government had best possess irrefutable and incontestable evidence against both for this impeachment motion!Why wasn't the former Chief Justice not subject to an impeachment?
A Camilleri
Dec 15th 2012, 12:52
...because he had resigned.
Peter Murray
Dec 15th 2012, 16:52
Or was it possibly because he was guilty?If you are not guilty you dont resign
Joseph Camilleri
Dec 15th 2012, 19:30
@Murray: the former Chief Justice also had a motion of impeachment filed against him.. it was discontinued after he resigned. Exactly like the case of Ray Pace
Please choose the reason of your report below: