A judge facing a parliamentary motion for his removal is likely to avoid all procedures against him following a government decision yesterday.

During a meeting of the House Business Committee, which regulates parliamentary procedure, the government insisted that Parliament should wait for the Constitutional Court to rule on a related case before continuing procedures on the motion.

Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco has mounted a legal challenge against a decision by the Commission for the Administration of Justice that cleared the way for Parliament to vote on his impeachment. The judge is expected to retire in August when he turns 65.

Despite the Opposition’s staunch objections and a clear warning by PN deputy leader Mario de Marco that this was “setting a very dangerous precedent”, regardless of the individual involved, Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech said the government wanted to postpone the parliamentary procedures as “it was prudent to await the court [outcome]”.

The law lays down that if the commission finds prima facie evidence of misbehaviour by a judge, as it did in the case of Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco, the motion “shall, together with the report of the commission, be taken up for consideration by the House”.

For the Opposition, the government MPs’ decision to wait until the court decides on the application signals the government has lost the power to impeach judiciary members.

“In line with this dangerous precedent, Parliament is sending the message that members of the judiciary cannot be removed as has been the case so far,” Dr de Marco told the committee.

“Since the Speaker ruled that an impeachment motion lasts only a legislature and this committee is deciding that we must wait for the court decision to proceed, this effectively means that no other member of the judiciary can ever be impeached,” he said.

A constitutional case can be filed by any individual and is normally followed by an appeal and possibly a case before the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court usually takes more than five years (the term of a parliamentary legislature in Malta) to determine a case.

At the start of yesterday’s sitting, Speaker Anġlu Farrugia said the judge’s lawyers made it clear he would take the case to the ECHR.

Despite the Opposition’s warning, Mr Grech insisted the government had received legal advice that concurred with its stand to postpone hearing the motion.

He cited constitutional lawyer Giovanni Bonello, who argued in Times of Malta that, in a spirit of prudence, Parliament should await the court judgment.

Dr de Marco said Mr Grech was quoting only part of what Dr Bonello said, because the former ECHR judge also added: “Parliament had all the powers to proceed with the impeachment case of a judge even if this is challenged before the Constitutional Court.”

When contacted, Dr Bonello told Times of Malta: “Parliament can determine its own procedures independently and the court cannot interfere. There is no written law requiring Parliament to suspend progress or giving the Constitutional Court power to issue an interim order to the House to suspend proceedings.”

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.