The government is insisting that it has been entirely consistent in its handling of the impeachment motion against Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco.
The Opposition, however, has accused the government of using parliamentary procedure as a face-saver for the judge, in full knowledge that he may well retire – he turns 65 in August – before a renewed process can be completed.
Following the Commission for the Administration of Justice’s decision earlier this month clearing the way for Parliament to debate the impeachment motion, the Speaker said he had received legal advice that the motion was “dead” because it was filed in the past legislature and by an MP (then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi) who was no longer in the House.
Last night he upheld that advice and ruled the motion, on these grounds, was no longer valid. The government has now presented fresh motion of impeachment, which will have to go before the commission again.
However, the Nationalist Party is insisting that the motion was still valid. Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil told Times of Malta that, in a memorandum dating back to April 21, 1996 Dr Gonzi, who, at the time, was Speaker, had gone into the merits of a similar scenario and concluded that such a motion would still remain valid even after the expiration of a legislature.
The memorandum had been backed by then Attorney General, Anthony Borg Barthet.
Dr Busuttil noted that even Erskine May, considered to be the parliamentary procedure bible for both the House of Commons in the UK and the Maltese Parliament, laid down that such motions were carried forward from one legislature to another.
Speaking before last night’s parliamentary session, he said the Prime Minister should move ahead with the impeachment motion and not try to hide behind the Speaker’s ruling.
He argued that the Prime Minister had to be consistent with his own declarations made in the wake of the decision by the Commission for the Administration of Justice which found prima facie evidence of inappropriate behaviour. Dr Busuttil noted that throughout the controversy, Joseph Muscat had pledged to abide by the commission’s recommendation.
In a question-and-answer session with Times of Malta journalists before the last election, when Parliament was already dissolved, Dr Muscat had said: “A Labour government would press ahead with the impeachment motion if this is what the commission recommends despite the fact that Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco’s son, David, is contesting the election on the Labour ticket.”
Approached after the legal advice given to the Speaker became known, Justice Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici insisted the government was being consistent. “The country has already experienced cases where the highest court of the land declared that the course of justice was prejudiced because of declarations and wrong decisions by politicians. The government wants to avoid all this,” he said.
Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri last week reassigned all cases being heard by Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco to other members of the judiciary until the impeachment case is heard. The judge continued to preside over cases after the commission had communicated its recommendation to the Speaker.