Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

The Commission for the Administration of Justice is denying it violated the fundamental human rights of Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, who is facing an impeachment motion.

In its reply to a constitutional application filed by Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco, the commission vehemently rejected accusations that it went beyond the powers granted to it by the Constitution.

The judge is claiming violation of his fundamental human rights and the right to a fair hearing.

He argued the commission’s failure to notify him before it considered the motion was illegal.

His constitutional case, which starts on Tuesday, was also filed against the Prime Minister, who moved the motion, the Attorney General and the Opposition leader.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco insists he was not given the opportunity to defend himself, in violation of his right to a fair hearing.

However, the commission states it “abided by the Constitution of Malta and did not violate any of his human rights”.

It said it was simply fulfilling its investigative role according to the Constitution.

The determination to remove a judge from his duties was expressively excluded from the commission’s functions and was entrusted by the Constitution to the House of Representatives, it said.

Through lawyer Henri Mizzi and legal procurator Jean Pierre Busuttil, the commission argued the Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction over it as, according to law, no court could examine whether it had carried out its functions in line with the powers conferred to it by the Constitution.

It said it had not decided on the judge’s civil or criminal rights or obligations, neither did it act as a judicial authority by deciding on his removal from office.

The impeachment procedure began 2012 when former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi had moved a motion in Parliament.

In January, Speaker Anġlu Farrugia ruled the original impeachment motion was “dead” because it had been filed during a previous legislature by a person who was no longer an MP and had never made it to Parliament’s agenda.

As a result, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat moved a fresh motion and this, according to law, was forwarded to the commission for investigation.A few days later, the commission wrote to the Speaker saying its position was unchanged: there was prima facie misbehaviour by the judge when he remained president of the Malta Olympic Committee.

He eventually decided to run again for the post.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco is arguing that the commission’s latest decision confirming its original conclusion that the impeachment should continue without offering him a fair hearing was in breach of the principle of natural justice.

His legal team is arguing that, according to the law regulating the commission, a new impeachment motion required a fresh investigation.

Dr Muscat also filed a reply to the judge’s claims, saying the complaints were over the procedures the commission had adopted and he had, therefore, nothing to reply to.

The same stand was adopted by the Attorney General, who said he could not understand why he had been brought into the case.