The government last night presented a new motion in Parliament for the impeachment of Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco after the Speaker ruled that the one filed by the previous administration was “dead”.
Speaker Anġlu Farrugia’s ruling now means that the impeachment process, which had already been going on for a year, will have to start from scratch.
Dr Farrugia gave two reasons why the motion, presented by former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi in December 2012, was no longer valid: Dr Gonzi was no longer a Member of Parliament and the motion had not started being discussed before Parliament was dissolved before the 2013 general election.
The Speaker ruled the procedure on impeachments stated that Parliament had to come to its decision following an opinion given by the Commission for the Administration of Justice.
This meant that any new motion tabled would have to go through this procedure in order to be deemed valid.
In light of this, the Opposition accused the government of using parliamentary procedure for the judge to save face, by ensuring he avoids impeachment given that he is set to retire in August when he turns 65.
The Speaker’s ruling was given on a request by the Opposition after the government and Opposition members of the House Business Committee on Monday disagreed with the legal advice given to the Speaker, which essentially said the motion was no longer valid.
Questions on the validity of the impeachment motion had been raised by Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco in two letters sent to the Speaker. He argued that motions automatically expired at the end of a legislature and that the motion was invalid given that Dr Gonzi was no longer an MP.
The judge’s letters followed the recent decision by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, after a year-long probe, that the impeachment motion should be heard by Parliament after it found evidence of prima facie misbehavior by the judge.
The issue revolves around Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco’s decision to stay on as president of the Malta Olympic Committee despite having been told by the commission in 2007 that this post was incompatible with his judicial duties.
Negative publicity received was result of his defiance
Two weeks ago the commission found that, although the judge was not involved in the illicit sale of winter Olympic Games tickets, the negative publicity he received by international media over the issue was the result of his defiance of the 2007 ruling.
Yesterday, the Speaker insisted that impeachment motions had serious legal and constitutional repercussions so he had to ensure the law was observed. He referred to previous parliamentary rulings, the legal advice he had been given, and the positions taken in other Commonwealth countries.
In the UK’s House of Commons, impeachment motions were not carried over from one legislature to another. In the Indian Parliament, an impeachment motion had been carried over but, in that case, the debate had already started and the proposers were still members of the House.
Dr Farrugia said that last week he took part in a Commonwealth Speakers’ conference where it was also agreed that an impeachment motion on which no debate had started was not to be carried over to a new legislature.
Focusing on the Maltese scene, he said an impeachment motion was treated like any other motion. This one had been presented a few days before Parliament was dissolved and debate had not started.
Dr Farrugia said the law in Malta also linked a motion with the person who presented it.
Although the two sides of the House could agree to reactivate the motion, it would be considered a new one and the same procedures had to be followed, Dr Farrugia said.