The British have historically held the view that government should not be just about formal systems of government enshrined in a rigidly written constitution but should be much more about the people into whose hands are entrusted the levers of power.
Malta is a country with historic links to Britain. We have long admired much that is British and we like to think we practise a parliamentary system based on the widely respected Westminster system.
Britain has a bicameral system of government, with no rigid written constitution allowing Parliament unfettered power. Paradoxically the House of Lords, a constituent part of this much envied system, is the most undemocratic House of government but it still discharges its restricted role as a legislative House of review effectively. The stark juxtaposition between this and our system of government is that the British Parliament operates with traditional integrity and a level of governance envied worldwide, not based on enforceable statute law but on parliamentary conventions, a code of ethics which albeit unwritten is respected without question.
Conventions provide the checks and balances required for good governance. In Britain the principle of ministerial accountability is based on the parliamentary convention demanding the resignation of ministers responsible for actions judged to be well below the standards expected by their parliamentary peers.
Like other conventions it is unwritten but has been historically upheld when it mattered and the passage of time has given it added value and credibility. Conversely, in Malta’s case parliamentary convention is strengthened with specific written reference to ministerial accountability in our Constitution but with both convention and constitutional references being totally ignored with impunity as if neither existed.
Section 79 (2) of our Constitution specifically states that errant ministers are to be held responsible to Parliament. Those who choose to look for escape hatches within the wording of our Constitution may argue that section 79(2) specifically refers to collective ministerial responsibility as opposed to the singular accountability, clearly not the spirit nor the intent of this historic document.
Section 80 of the Constitution also makes it clear the Prime Minister has the executive power to select and lead his ministers in cabinet. He controls and represents the Cabinet. So it logically follows that when the errant Minister for Lands also happens to be the PM, section 79(2) of our Constitution has to apply under whichever interpretation it is given.
The audit is unlikely to disclose the original intent so it’s just another charade
There is no escape from it. What can or should be done about it is another question.
The doctrine of separation of powers was first espoused by the French philosopher Montesquieu. It basically argues that the three organs of government should be kept separate and operated independently of each other. This doctrine was designed to avoid the tempting misuse of the concentration of power in one entity.
Lord Acton famously coined the phrase “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. How does this apply to Malta? The Prime Minister controls the legislature by virtue of a strong majority granted to him by a disillusioned electorate.
Soon after the election the PM lost no time in further tightening his grip on executive power by replacing the heads of the police and the army. Recent reports regarding the push for new appointments of judges and magistrates, some of whom do not meet the qualifications criteria required by the Constitution, are strong indicators that the only remaining organ of government not yet under the Prime Minister’s control, the judiciary, may not be immune from interference. Malta is treading a dangerous constitutional minefield not seen for many decades.
A number of significant financial scandals with reported prima facie evidence of wrongdoing and representing millions of taxpayer euros remain substantially uninvestigated.
The Australia Hall affair involving the transfer of valuable land and property to the Labour Party for a pittance and subsequently appraised at a reported significantly much higher value is now a fait accompli.
Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi, outed with an undeclared Panama-registered company and New Zealand Trust, was defended by the Prime Minister. An audit which will no doubt show no significant funds in the accounts thus deftly avoiding the real issue.
The entire purpose of a Panama company and trust structure could only be for harbouring undeclared assets and normally driven either by tax issues or disclosure of asset origin issues. Those structures obviously cost the beneficiary considerable amounts of money to set up and administer and equally obvious would only be formed if there were an impending reason for their existence.
The audit is unlikely to disclose the original intent so it’s just another charade designed to fool those unfamiliar with such matters and protect the government.
What can be done about all this is probably very little. The Constitution was designed to provide some protection through section 79(2) to reign in a miscreant government. With its large majority in Parliament there is no risk of the government losing a vote of confidence.
There is of course the President who is under oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Madam President is highly unlikely to intervene. There is also the Constitutional Court which would require significant legal resources to combat a recalcitrant government with unlimited taxpayer funds at its disposal.
So in a nutshell this government seems free to ride roughshod over any principle of wrongdoing until at least the next election.
Anthony Trevisan is a businessman passionate about environmental issues particularly as they affect Malta.