The motion for the impeachment of Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco was shelved until a court decision is taken on the constitutional case he filed against the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Commission for the Administration of Justice, claiming he is not getting a fair trial.

The government this morning proposed to the House Business Committee that Parliament should postpone its debate on a motion to impeach the judge until a decision was taken by the Constitutional Court on the

Addressing the House Business Committee this morning, deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech said that however, as promised, the government had passed on to the Opposition a draft on the procedure that should be taken should the debate continue but it had been advised that caution should be used.

It made more sense at this stage to wait for the result of the Constitutional case if there was legal doubt on whether the Commission had acted correctly.

However, Opposition deputy leader Mario de Marco noted that the Constitutional application filed by Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco was to attack the Commission’s decision.

Parliament was independent from Court, which had not ordered Parliament not to continue with the procedures and Parliament was faced with a decision of the Commission for the Administration of Justice that there was a prima facie breach of the code of ethics and Parliament was duty bound to proceed with the matter as soon as it received the Commission’s report, which was still valid.

"We should take note of the application but procedures should not be frozen," he insisted.

The hearing should proceed while guaranteeing Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco's right to a fair trial.

He said that irrespective of who the judge was, if the precedent being proposed by the government was taking halting the procedure after a report of bad behaviour had been confirmed by the Commission because of a Constitutional application, no impeachment procedures would ever be closed.

He said that there was nothing in the law which stopped a person from filing a constitutional application and if they lost that case they could appeal and after that to go to European court. This, he said, was a procedure that could take years.

However, Mr Grech insisted that it would be wrong not follow a more honest and prudent procedure because of time limitations.

Government MP Deborah Schembri noted that it would be wrong to ignore a claim that the Commission had breached the right to a person’s fair hearing because of time constraints. The consequences of such a decision could be the removal of a ‘not guilty’ judge without the possibility of reinstating him.

Mr Grech said it would also be an ugly precedent if the House proceeded with the debate of an impeachment motion when it was more prudent to wait.

Nationalist MP Chris Said said that the precedent the government was proposing would be removing once and for all the power of the House to impeach a member of the judiciary.

GOVERNMENT INSISTS ITS POSITION IS THE CORRECT ONE

In a statement this evening, the government said its position on the case was the correct and proper one and appealed to the Opposition to be mature and not turn the matter into a political ball.

The government, it said, had already clearly and repeatedly stated it believed Parliament had the power to go ahead with the motion so it was not true that the case created a precedent which limited the powers of the House in cases of impeachment.

However, it believed that one should be prudent and in cases where breach of human rights was claimed.

It said that both former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello and the dean of the faculty of law insisted that Parliament should be prudent and wait for the Constitutional Court's decision..

The government hoped that the constitutional procedures would be concluded in reasonable time.