Parliament has the bad habit of enacting legislation which does not comply with the highest law of the land - the Constitution of Malta. Recent examples to this effect from last year’s parliamentary business are the Constitutional Reform (Justice Sector) Act, 2016 and the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act, 2016.

The former breaches the human rights provisions of the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in relation to the right to a fair trial while the latter contradicts the Constitution’s provision relating to the Catholic religion as the official religion of the State.

Both government and Opposition voted in favour of these two constitutional infringing laws.

As though this assault on the Constitution was not enough, Parliament has this year continued in the same vein, increasing its dosage of unconstitutionality, by enacting three laws and has at least a further Bill pending before it, four in all, which are in direct contrast with the Constitution (and, by the way, this is not intended to be a comprehensive list). Yet we are not even mid-way through 2017.

The three laws in question are: the Coordination of Government Inspections Act, 2017, the Small Business (Amendment) Act, 2017, and the Standards in Public Life Act, 2017. The Bill is the Media and Defamation Bill.

The Standards in Public Life Act, 2017 refers, in articles 2 and 3(1)(b), to the unconstitutional office of “person of trust”, that is, “any employee or person engaged in the private secretariat of a minister or of a parliamentary secretary wherein the person acts as an adviser or consultant to a minister or to a parliamentary secretary or acts in an executive role in the ministry or parliamentary secretariat, and where the person has not been engaged according to the procedure established under article 110 of the Constitution”.

To show its might and disrespect to the Constitution, Parliament finds no difficulty in declaring that persons of trust are engaged not according to the Constitution. It does not even attempt to hide its unconstitutional behaviour. On the contrary, in full homage to the principles of openness and transparency, unashamedly the House of Representatives perches its unbelievable assault on the Constitution for one and all to see.

To show its might and disrespect to the Constitution, Parliament finds no difficulty in declaring that persons of trust are engaged not according to the Constitution

The Constitution does not allow for the appointment of persons of trust but both the Nationalist Party when in government, and the Labour Party now in government, have had and have no qualms in appointing persons of trust in complete defiance of the Constitution.

This is indeed an unconstitutional way how to employ people with the government without going through the proper procedures established by the Constitution and, thanks to the complicity of the Opposition and the connivance of the Public Service Commission (the latter has taken no steps over the years to halt such unconstitutional practice), government of both colours has had and continues to have the audacity and comfort to ride roughshod over the Constitution’s provisions.

While Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, as Ombudsman, went to court and won both at first instance and, on appeal, a case against the government related to the investigation of promotions under the Ombudsman Act, the Public Service Commission’s timid and servile behaviour towards the government leave much to be desired.

In terms of the Standards in Public Life Act, 2017, again approved by both sides of the House, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life is empowered to “investigate and report to the House of Representatives whether a person of trust shall have breached the provisions of the Code of Ethics included in the First Schedule to the Public Administration Act to which persons of trust shall by virtue of this Act and without any further requirement, be subject”.

The Small Business (Amendment) Act, 2017 empowers the competent minister in article 2 thereof - without the need of going to Parliament to request it to amend that law - to add any other entity which s/he may from time to time identify, as a public sector entity offering services to business even if the Constitution does not confer upon such minister the power to identify constitutional commissions and the Broadcasting Authority for that purpose. Needless to say, once again, the law was approved by both sides of the House.

The Coordination of Government Inspections Act, 2017, defines an entity as including “any state body”. This means that the National Audit Office - a State body in its own right - might end up being curtailed in the number of inspections it carries out in terms of the Audit General and National Audit Act, Chapter 396 of the Laws of Malta. This is because the Inspections Coordination Office has, among other aims, that to “minimise the burden of inspections on entities and individuals”.

This office may give “directions to inspectorates as are necessary to achieve its aims... and notwithstanding any other law, it shall be the duty of officers of inspectorates and those responsible for them to carry out those directions”. Auditor General please note how the National Audit Office and yourself will end up muzzled when the minister responsible for commerce amends the principal law to include the National Audit Office in its schedule thereby bringing the National Audit Office subject to the government appointed Head of the Inspections Coordination Office.

Of course, the Opposition toed the government’s line and voted also in favour of this law.

The Media and Defamation Bill is an exercise in its own right of constitutional assault: it is in breach of the lex mitior principle (the retrospectiveness of the more lenient criminal law); it affords different treatment to persons accused of a criminal offence under the now-to-be repealed Press Act and the Criminal Code, on the one hand, and the Bill, on the other; it limits freedom of expression only to journalists in the employ of the traditional media houses and excludes other persons from exercising their freedom of expression; it maintains in force media gagging through recourse to the precautionary warrant of prohibitory injunction; and it is disproportionate when it requires practically anybody who owns a computer, a mobile phone, a tablet or some other communication technology equipment in Malta to register with the Media Registrar.

Thank God that the Prime Minister, ministers and parliamentary secretaries subscribe to an oath of office to faithfully and conscientiously perform their respective duties in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of Malta, without fear or favour, and that all MPs also take an oath of allegiance where they solemnly swear or affirm that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the people and the Republic of Malta and its Constitution.

But it is more than evident, from the laws enacted and Bills proposed, that these oaths constitute lip service for MPs swear or affirm one thing but in actual fact do the obverse in certain cases.

Kevin Aquilina is the Dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta.