Opposition Deputy Leader Mario de Marco said this evening that the fundamental issues at the core of the controversy over the police handling of the John Dalli case were equality before the law and the right of expression of political thought.

He was speaking at the opening of the debate on an Opposition motion for a revision of a ruling by the Speaker, who had found the Leader of the Opposition in prima facie breach of privilege for claiming that there was political interference in police investigations into the John Dalli case.

The ruling was given at the request of the Prime Minister, who denied that there had been any such interference. He had asked Dr Busuttil to substantiate or withdraw his comments, but Dr Busuttil refused, saying that he had made a political judgement based on developments, notably the evidence in court by former Police Commissioner John Rizzo.

Mr Rizzo had said that there were grounds to arraign Mr Dalli, and the Attorney General agreed with him.

Opening the debate, Dr de Marco said Dr Busuttil had made a political comment, and the government's reply was to try to gag the Opposition.

The Opposition disagreed with the way how Dr Muscat had demanded that Dr Busuttil withdraw his political comment and therefore disagreed with the ruling.

Dr de Marco referred to the evidence given in court by Mr Rizzo and also noted how Mr Rizzo had been replaced by a new commissioner who, within days, said there were no grounds to arraign Mr Dalli.

It was unusual for a new Police Commissioner to reach a conclusion which was directly contrary to what the former Commissioner had concluded.

There had since been absolute silence from the new Commissioner and the Prime Minister. The people had expected information. The Opposition, as was its duty, made its views and political conclusions known, in Parliament and beyond, and therefore, without privilege protection.

The Opposition's political judgement was not based solely on the evidence given by the former Police Commissioner, but also other factors, such as  how investigating officers were taken off the case.

On what grounds had the new Police Commissioner decided that there was no case against Mr Dalli? No facts had changed. Neither, as far was was known, had the Attorney General's position changed.

So what had changed, other than the Police Commissioner?

The facts pointed to a situation that there had been political interference in the Dalli case. How else could the new commissioner take a decision which was contrary to that of the investigators, the Attorney General or his own predecessor?

And then Mr Dalli was appointed a consultant to the government.

The issue here is not John Dalli himself. The Opposition is not here to judge Mr Dalli.- Mario de Marco

The issue here, however, was not John Dalli himself. The Opposition was not here to judge Mr Dalli. He had given years of service to the party, the country and the people. What the Opposition was judging were the actions of the new Police Commissioner, because justice had to be equal for all. Equality before the law was a fundamental principle which also applied to the way the police conducted their investigations and acted on them.

The Prime Minister could disagree with the Opposition, but he had no right, or justification, to stop the Opposition from saying what it believed. By so doing, he had only reinforced the view of those who were very suspicious of how matters had been handled.

Dr de Marco said Parliament was the Temple of Democracy. Privilege was a facility given to MPs to be able to speak freely and it was therefore ironic that the Prime Minister had used privilege to gag the Opposition, rather than to safeguard its right to speak.

It was ironic that this country a few months ago acted to ease censorship laws, but now the prime minister was fighting against freedom of political thought. The right of political expression had to reign supreme, starting from Parliament, Dr de Marco insisted. He hoped the government would reconsider.  

PRIME MINISTER SAFEGUARDING HIS INTEGRITY - LABOUR WHIP

Labour MP Carmelo Abela said a very serious allegation had been made against the prime minister. The fact that this motion was being debated a week after it was presented showed the importance which the majority gave to the minority. There were several instances in the past when motions to contest a Speaker's ruling were not moved for debate.

This ruling, he said, was not the first of its kind.

Mr Abela noted that the prime minister in his complaint, had given time for Dr Busuttil to substantiate his allegation, when he could have insisted on immediate action as soon as the allegation was made.

The government never gagged the Opposition. It was the Opposition which had walked out of this House of Democracy after the ruling was given.

Dr Busuttil never substantiated his serious allegations and the Prime Minister was therefore defending his integrity.

The government, he said, was strengthening Parliament and hence, democracy and the rights of the Opposition.

FORMER GOVERNMENT 'UNDERMINED PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY' - MIZZI

Transport Minister Joe Mizzi, a former Labour whip, said it was the former government which had undermined parliamentary democracy. For a whole year, the then government rendered Parliament practically ineffective after it lost its majority. One also needed to remember how then minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici set the agenda of the House when he himself was facing a motion of no confidence. The former government had also limited supplementary parliamentary questions.

It was also under the PN government that the police, the courts and under institutions suffered corruption.

In the case at issue, the Leader of the Opposition had not given a political opinion, but had made an accusation. Standing Orders laid down that no one could impute bad motives on MPs. Dr Busuttil was asked to substantiate or withdraw his accusation and he refused. Standing Orders, therefore, had to be followed, Mr Mizzi said.

PRIVILEGE MEANT TO PROTECT MPS, NOT GAG THEM - ZAMMIT DIMECH

Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech spoke on how the concept of MPs' privilege was introduced to ensure that they had unfettered freedom of expression. The concept was introduced in the House of Commons to protect MPs from the displeasure of the king. But in Malta the contrary was happening, according to the Prime Minister, an MP could not say in the House what had been said outside.

Dr Zammit Dimech went over how events unfolded. He noted that the new Police Commissioner had said that he decided that there was no case against Mr Dalli after a profound discussion with the Attorney General. But when he was asked whether the AG was being inconsistent, he replied that the AG did not tell one what to do in such cases.

The Opposition, Dr Zammit Dimech said, would continue to reach its political judgement, in the House and beyond. Fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, came ahead of any majority or any other consideration, he said.

Deborah Schembri said an allegation of political interference in the police could not be taken lightly. The Opposition Leader had not been stopped from making his allegation, repeatedly, but he had been asked to substantiate and explain his claim, and he did not.

One could not simply reach a conclusion and say it was a political judgement. Was Dr Busuttil's political judgement of the type as when he described her as having a 'Nationalist face' because of her past?

BUSUTTIL'S POLITICAL JUDGEMENT 'ILLOGICAL'

Dr Busuttil's so-called political judgement of political interference in the Dalli case was illogical because the premises he had mentioned did not point to that conclusion. He had not based himself on fact, and therefore had been expected to explain his reasoning. Fundamental rights were not unlimited and only applied as long as the rights of others were not infringed.

The former Police Commissioner had had time to arraign Mr Dalli, had he wished to do so after Mr Dalli returned to Malta. After all, the police waited at the airport even for people who were wanted for not paying €300 maintenance to their spouse. Therefore, in not arraigning Mr Dalli, the new Commissioner of Police had not acted differently from his predecessor.

Owen Bonnici, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, said Standing Orders were there to protect the rights of all MPs. In this case, a serious allegation had been made against one of the MPs, and the Orders laid down that one could not input bad motives on another MP, without explaining his argument. This did not mean gagging anyone.

Dr Bonnici said the Opposition motion was out of order because no decision had been taken. The Speaker had only ruled prima facie and now it was up to the Privileges Committee to consider the case in detail.

Dr Beppe Fenech Adami said Dr Schembri had made the same arguments used by old Labour governments to stop the PN, as was the case before the Zejtun mass meeting. The government, six months into its term, was showing arrogance, incompetence and abuse and the opposition would not let matters lie. The opposition would not stop pointing out abuses which were happening in the police force including how people were removed to be replaced by those close to the Labour Party, including the Police Commissioner himself.

Nor would the opposition shirk from commenting and reaching its conclusions on the parody of the ministerial declaration of assets, the appointment to a ministers' wife for €420 per day, and the hypocrisy over illegal immigration, with the government having attempted to implement a push back policy.

Dr Fenech Adami was followed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition,  who are being reported separately. The Opposition motion was defeated, with 25 votes in favour and 35 against.