President George Abela’s refusal to sign the Civil Unions Bill into law would have caused a constitutional crisis had this not happened so close to the end of his presidency.
This is the first time in the history of the Maltese Republic that a President has told a Prime Minister of his unwillingness to approve a particular piece of legislation.
Malta has a parliamentary system of government where executive power lies in the hands of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the Constitution obliges the President, who is not directly elected by the electorate, to respect the parliamentary majority forming the government and to sign any Bills passed through all its readings.
It is widely assumed that Dr Abela chose not to approve this Bill because he was opposed to it on moral grounds and because he believed it went against his conscience. Former presidents Eddie Fenech Adami and Ugo Mifsud Bonnici have supported him on this issue – and both said they would have resigned rather than sign a Bill that went against their principles.
Dr Fenech Adami told Times of Malta: “Principles are not for sale. If a President does not agree to give his assent to a Bill, there are only two options. Either resign or face an impeachment motion.”
Dr Mifsud Bonnici said: “President Abela is right and he shouldn’t sign the Bill if he feels that it clashes with his conscience. I would have done the same in his place... Still, no one can force a President to go against his conscience”.
Indeed, a President or any politician has every right to abide by his or her conscience. In 1990, for example, Belgium’s King Baudouin abdicated for one day so as not to approve a new law permitting abortion.
However, it would have been preferable had Dr Abela come out in the open and publicly expressed his opposition to the Bill, rather than keep quiet about the whole issue. It would also have been more suitable had Dr Abela resigned as a matter of principle rather than refuse to sign a Bill he is constitutionally obliged to approve.
The news about the President’s refusal to give his consent to this legislation was broken last Thursday by Times of Malta, and neither Dr Abela nor Prime Minister Joseph Muscat have chosen to comment on it. This is regrettable. We all like to consider Malta a mature democracy; in such a scenario such differences are discussed openly with full respect for opposing views.
The Prime Minister has avoided a constitutional crisis by prolonging the final reading of the Civil Unions Bill so that it is presented to Dr Abela’s successor after Friday. In reality, he has been saved by the bell.
Could the government, perhaps, have been more cautious when drafting this Bill to ensure the President’s signature? While it has an electoral mandate to introduce civil unions, its equation of such unions with marriage has caused divisions in the country.
Dr Abela also has some pertinent questions to answer: would he have adopted the same stand if he was still in the beginning of his tenure? If he had objected to the Bill on moral grounds would he have resigned? Which part of the legislation is he objecting to?
The enactment of civil unions should have been an occasion for consensus and a milestone in civil liberties. Instead, it has become yet another divisive political issue which also led to the head of state refusing to endorse it.