An Opposition request for immediate adjournment of Parliament for an urgent debate on the ongoing disagreement between the Ombudsman and the Ministry of Home Affairs was turned down by the Speaker this evening.
The request was made by Opposition leader Simon Busuttil who said that the disagreement between the Ombudsman and Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia over whether the Ombudsman could hear cases submitted by officers of the AFM was serious. The Ombudsman had also complained that the AFM was withholding documents and information from him, thus hindering his investigations.
The situation was serious enough for Judge Giovanni Bonello to have yesterday described the situation as a Constitutional crisis, since it involved conflict between two institutions of the state.
This, Dr Busuttil said, was a conflict of the government’s making, a conflict which was not needed and which was undermining the moral authority which the Ombudsman had to date enjoyed from the public.
The Speaker, he said, should protect the Ombudsman, who was an officer of Parliament.
Replying, Dr Mallia said there was no need for such a debate to be held with urgency under standing order 13. Nor could this be defined as a ‘definite matter’ because it involved the interpretation of a law, with the Office of the Ombudsman having changed its position from its original interpretation.
The government wanted a solution. His argument was that the Armed Forces of Malta Act was clear and the government was acting under the same interpretation of the former government. Therefore there was no urgency for the debate.
The issue should be debated, but in due time, he said. He also pointed out that after the Ombudsman presented a judicial protect, he had also filed a counter-protest.
Dr Busuttil said the matter was definite and was a concern to people, and Dr Bonello had even described it as a constitutional crisis. If that did not make it urgent, what did?
As to Dr Mallia's claim that the same happened under the PN, there never before was a situation where the government interfered in the work of the Ombudsman and therefore the Ombudsman had not felt the need to file a judicial protest against the then government.
Labour whip Carmelo Abela said the government was not against holding a debate, but a date should be agreed in the House Business Committee.
The sitting was suspended for about an hour for the Speaker to give a ruling.
In his ruling, the Speaker, Anglu Farrugia, said the request could only be upheld if the matter was definite, of public importance and urgent. The first two requisites were met.
As for urgency, Dr Farrugia referred to previous rulings, including one by Speaker Lawerence Gonzi where he said that urgency had to be thus that circumstances could change if the debate was not held.
He said that the Chair was of the view that this issue was not one of urgency that merited immediate debate, and the opposition's request for urgent debate was therefore being turned down.
He augured that agreement could be reached on a date for the debate.