The Constitution of Malta imposes a duty on the President not to contest the will of the majority in the House of Representatives. He or she is obliged to sign “without delay” any Bill passed by the House on Third Reading and finally approved by the majority.

However, after 50 years of one governor-general and several distinguished presidents of the republic, President George Abela has committed the unprecedented and constitutionally unthinkable act of expressing his intention not to sign into law a Bill – the Civil Unions Bill – when it was approved by the House of Representatives. He apparently pleaded “personal conscience on moral grounds” as his reason for dissent.

Were it not that Dr Abela decision (not made public, but conveyed informally to the Prime Minister and now leaked to the media) came at the fag-end of his presidency, Malta might have been plunged into a constitutional crisis. As it is, it was no more than a pointless gesture of protest by a president on the way out.

The questions raised by this incident – for, despite its extreme seriousness, it is in reality no more than that – are both constitutional and personal, the latter reflecting directly on President Abela judgement.

The constitutional position is clear. The president is Malta’s head of State. He has no executive powers. In legal terms, power is in reality the power of Parliament, with the president contributing only a few ritual and largely ceremonial gestures.

He is placed there by government to be the president of all the people of Malta, representing the heterogeneous society that it has become and reflecting those of different faiths within the State and of none. He should be a unifying force in the country, who is non-partisan, impartial and above politics.

Most importantly, the president is the guardian and custodian of our constitution. As such, he must not defy the government. Indeed, he is bound by law to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet.

The President could legitimately refuse to sign a Bill into law if it violated the constitution. But he has absolutely no right to plead personal conscience or moral grounds for otherwise not doing so. With the greatest respect to President Emeritus Ugo Mifsud Bonnici and President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami, no president’s conscience can ever be allowed to be either present or paramount in the performance of his constitutional role.

For any President of Malta to suppose that his moral judgment or conscience matters in the performance of his duty is frankly narcissistic and self-centred and a complete abnegation of his constitutional responsibilities as president.

The quality, above all, that should distinguish a good president is an unswerving sense of duty in upholding the constitution of Malta. President Abela has failed in this key aspect of his role. Worse, by his action he posed an unconstitutional challenge to Parliament’s authority – the very authority which he was put there to safeguard.

It was simply unacceptable for him not to comply with Parliament’s democratic expression of will because this Bill happened not to fit with his own narrow moral or religious beliefs.

There can be no room for ‘personal conscience’ in a President’s role when faced with a Bill that is overwhelmingly passed on third reading by the House, for which the government had a clear and substantial electoral mandate.

He and the other former presidents who expressed a view appear to have forgotten that religious faith is a private matter and that the principle of the clear separation of civil and religious authority is among the most important characteristics of the liberal democracy which our Constitution represents.

It was simply unacceptable for the President not to comply with Parliament’s democratic expression of will because this Bill happened not to fit with his own narrow moral or religious beliefs

While there may have been personal religious reasons – which I respect – for not wishing to see the introduction of civil unions, there is no moral, conscientious or constitutional basis for advocating that there should not be a law introduced to permit the stable union of same sex couples availing themselves of the same civil and social rights as heterosexual members of society (including the right to adopt if, as it does, due process under the law permits it).

This is essentially and overwhelmingly an issue of civil rights, justice, fairness and equality of treatment in our society, not a moral issue.

President Abela gesture was not just futile, but also self-indulgent. The more important issue arising from it concerns his judgement. One cannot help being left with a feeling of relief that it is as well that his judgement as President was never actually tested by a real political or constitutional crisis during his tenure.

The fact that President Abela had long hankered after an expanded and more clearly delineated and, in his word, ‘autonomous’ role for the presidency is beside the point. That is an issue which the forthcoming convention on the constitution may wish to debate. It is a matter on which I would advise caution.

One tampers with any constitution at one’s peril. In constitutional matters it would be wise to be guided by the old adage: “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”

And this is why I remain deeply sceptical of the bread-and-circuses approach to the traditional inauguration ceremony that is being adopted by Malta’s new president, Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, and the Prime Minister’s putative plans “to broaden her role as President”.

As to President Abela, his misjudged interference in the constitutional process has sullied an otherwise successful presidency. This is a pity, for he has been a popular and populist President who did good work in bringing the presidency closer to the people, and in his philanthropic work, despite one or two glitches in the latter (I have in mind his trip to Peru on missionary work at a time of political turbulence in Malta, and some questions about the administration of the Community Chest Fund).

It is sad that a President who won widespread respect and affection for his approachability and human touch over the last five years ultimately ignored his overriding duty to Parliament, and the Presidency, by forgetting that under our constitution his own personal conscience should count for nought in the performance of his duties.

All major religions, including the Catholic Church, accept that in a democracy Parliament’s decisions about what sort of behaviour should be lawful are not necessarily the same as what is considered morally right on a purely religious basis. Social justice demanded the introduction of divorce (a Bill which President Abela signed into law) and social justice cries out for civil unions today.

It is the duty of society and the State – from the President downwards – to weigh up the issues on the basis of the interests of the community as a whole, not on the basis of private religious or moral beliefs.

Yet, rather than allowing all citizens to be treated equally, President Abela felt minded to undermine the constitution he was there to protect by refusing to enact a law for the introduction of the legal remedy of civil unions.

It is with a sad heart that I have to conclude that history may come to judge that President Abela left one of the greatest offices in the land under a cloud.

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.