The judicial protest filed to prevent the Prime Minister reappointing former minister Manuel Mallia to the Cabinet opens a number of fresh wounds for the Labour Party and also raises several important issues.

Let’s start with the case in favour.

Mallia’s return to the ministerial fold was less than subtly heralded by the former minister and the Prime Minister with over-indulgent exchanges of extravagant public declarations of cast iron friendship, mutual affection and admiration at a public party forum leading up to the local elections. That was closely followed by the ‘I was made a scapegoat’ interview by Mallia.

Clearly, the rehabilitation button had been pressed.

What are we to make of all that’s been written about Mallia’s ministerial demise late last year?

Mallia as minister had an impressive portfolio that included home affairs and internal security. His political stature was signified not just by the large ministry he held but also by the quality and importance of his responsibilities, all of which are at the coalface of daily political commentary.

That position would suggest two things.

Firstly, Mallia was a very powerful albeit controversial minister within the Labour Party. Powerful ministers give rise to factions which often reflect strong support as well as envious enmity within any political party.

It has been said that every soldier carries a marshal’s baton in his knapsack and self-professed soldier of steel Mallia, former powerful minister in the Cabinet, would clearly be no exception.

As succinctly advised in Godfather II, it pays to keep your friends close but your enemies (or, as in this case, ambitious and resentful smouldering colleagues) even closer.

The Prime Minister does not need any reminding of the internecine fighting within the last Nationalist government, which resulted in a well-deserved haemorrhaging of electoral support and a significant loss at the polls.

The fact that the judicial protest was filed by parties closely associated with the PL would suggest that not every Labourite shares the same sentiments as the Prime Minister in relation to the early return to Cabinet of the former minister.

Secondly, it may well be the case that the Prime Minister is being pragmatic in another way. Neither of the two major political parties in Malta are overwhelmed with deep reserves of talented ministers and shadow ministers, with some notable exceptions.

The PL is blessed with an intelligent and savvy Prime Minister, backed by a highly-intelligent and experienced deputy. The Nationalist Party has similar exceptions in its midst. But the fact remains that the loss of a skilful political player, a fierce debater in the House and, by reputation, a strong protagonist will be badly felt by the party and his absence may, in the end, reflect badly on the performance of a government still learning on the job after a long time in Opposition.

Hence, bringing back Mallia, primarily in the interests of the party but, also, not necessarily without enhancing the interests of the country through a more effective administration may be a compelling argument particularly bearing in mind the godfather’s advice mentioned above.

The case against.

The Prime Minister will be acting with less than reasonable correctness if he brought back Manuel Mallia so shortly after such a monumental failure

We like to think that Malta’s system of government is based on that of Westminster. Unlike Malta, Britain has no written Constitution, however, the system relies heavily on parliamentary conventions based on historic precedents and tradition and members of both Houses generally doing the honourable and right thing by the system.

In Britain (as well as in many other democracies), the records are littered with cases of ministerial resignations stemming from the principle of accountability, many of which did not directly involve the minister personally.

In 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. Almost immediately then British foreign secretary Lord Carrington accepted full responsibility for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s complacency and failure to see that event incubating and, without further ado, he resigned his ministry.

That was the second time Lord Carrington’s stellar career was interrupted by his own hand by accepting accountability for failings within his area of responsibility. He had first offered his resignation as a junior minister assisting the Minister for Agriculture very early in his career based on the resignation of the senior minister in what was called the Crachel Down affair.

In both cases, Carrington had clearly and unarguably no remote direct involvement with either Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands or his senior minister’s involvement in the Crachel Down affair but he chose to comply with the traditional principle of ministerial accountability, which is simply one of many conventions governing the system of government in Britain.

This system of government has operated successfully for centuries without reference to any one particular document but political parties and members of the UK Parliament have consistently relied on and upheld conventions or traditional standards of behaviour.

Despite the lack of a written Constitution, members of both Houses in Britain are expected to adhere to certain standards and they generally do. This is particularly important as, putting aside the various treaties within the EU, the absence of a written Constitution gives absolute sovereignty and supremacy to the British Parliament.

Conversely, Malta has a written Constitution but, ironically, by contrast we have witnessed both main parties periodically spending considerable parliamentary time in search of cute ways to circumnavigate both the spirit and the good intent of the people who wrote it and suit their particular circumstances.

Despite the former minister’s continuing fogging of the issues surrounding his dismissal from Cabinet, there is absolutely not a scintilla of doubt about his rightly-placed accountability.

The epicentre of the entire shooting incident was his personal driver, a former policeman carrying a loaded weapon on everyday duties, which sounds very dodgy, to say the least. (I am not aware of any comment about drivers of other important ministers, including the Prime Minister, authorised to carry loaded weapons as part of their daily duties).

The inquiry into the incident found there was an attempt to cover up the shooting by people within one of the departments then falling under Mallia.

The incident involved the minister’s personal armed driver. It clearly involved the police, which he was politically responsible for. It would be hard to believe the minister had not been aware his driver had been armed.

The question of the carriage of arms in public with anything less than full and formal authority (if that were indeed the case) may well also have wider implications for both the driver and the minister.

There was obviously nowhere to hide for Mallia and the Prime Minister acted decisively and correctly by removing him.

There is no apparent doubt that it is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to reappoint Mallia if he so chooses. Putting aside what’s good for the Prime Minister and the PL, if Mallia is indeed regarded as a necessary ingredient within the current administration to provide optimum effective government then it would arguably be a sound decision to bring him back after a reasonable period of rehabilitation.

However, given the seriousness and magnitude of the incident in question, the Prime Minister will be acting with less than reasonable correctness if he decided to bring back Mallia so shortly after such a monumental failure.

Anthony Trevisan is a businessman.