Your story about Labour MP Joseph Sammut lodging an objection with the Speaker of the House on an article in this newspaper that described him as a Labour MP and Marco Gaffarena’s lawyer, speaks volumes about Dr Sammut’s poor grasp of the principles underlying his two positions as MP and lawyer.

The article is unclear as to whether Dr Sammut takes umbrage at either being called a Labour MP or Mr Gaffarena’s lawyer. One can only assume he feels uncomfortable with the connection between his position as a member of a government trying to defend an indefensible transaction, condemned by the Auditor General and clearly against the financial interests of the country, and his position as a lawyer representing the interests of the benefitting party on the other side of the transaction.

Anywhere else but in Malta one could easily argue a significant conflict of interest, most particularly given that the action against his client is being instigated by the person who may directly affect his parliamentary career, that is the Prime Minister, and who also heads the government to which Dr Sammut is officially a sworn loyal and paid active member.

Sammut decided in favour of the cheaper and for him much safer alternative of dragging the Speaker into the fray

This is probably a very unique case in recent European legal fraternity history which involves a lawyer entitled to receive payment from both the plaintiff (in this case the government) and the defendant (Mr Gaffarena). The mind truly boggles.

Like all other members of Parliament, Dr Sammut enjoys parliamentary privilege which in a nutshell gives him the incontestable right of absolute freedom of speech without fear of libel or slander or indeed the right of rebuttal in the House by an injured party.

No news media, indeed nobody outside Parliament, has such privilege. Not enough it seems for Dr Sammut, as he also appears to want to muzzle the free press, a medium which is open to actions of slander and libel, over a simple and factual description of his two occupations.

So while it is clearly open for Dr Sammut to pursue the media in court should he feel he has been treated unfairly, misrepresented or has suffered damages, he decided against that option in favour of the cheaper and for him much safer alternative of dragging the Speaker into the fray.

The Speaker should clearly have absolutely no bar of it.  This case has nothing to do with him. It is a bizarre appeal from someone who would be expected to know better from his chosen profession as a lawyer and perhaps more importantly as a member of the country’s Parliament, which also makes him a lawmaker.

As a lawyer, Dr Sammut must be well aware that engendering and inviting further public debate regarding a court case about to go live may well give rise to serious breaches of sub judice and legal privilege issues down the track. There is no obvious upside in further politicising an impending court case.

Frankly, superfluous publicity and irreverent remarks about the unsaintly nature of Dr Sammut’s clients may also threaten the fair hearing in court his client is absolutely entitled to. I have no sympathy for news media which misinform, get their facts wrong or deliberately sensationalise certain cases simply to enhance their own editorial bias without justification. But it seems, in this case, that the general thrust of the report was correct.

On the other hand, the Gaffarena affair has been condemned by all and sundry, including the Prime Minister, so the cynical attempt by Dr Sammut to drag the Speaker into this unholy mess on such frivolous and vexatious grounds has absolutely no merit, has no obvious lawful or moral standing, possibly well outside the spirit if not the content of Standing Orders of the House.

It puts the Speaker in a no-win situation and only threatens to cheapen the good standing of what should be one of the highest public offices in our system of government.

It also highlights risks associated with continuing with one’s chosen profession, in this case that of practising law, and contemporaneously fulfilling the onerous obligations of a member of Parliament, in what should be a full-time capacity.

Anthony Trevisan is a businessman passionate about environmental issues.