The government yesterday said it was ready to present a fresh motion for the impeachment of Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, after the Speaker received legal advice that the motion filed by former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi in 2012 was no longer valid.

The advice was read out during a House Business Committee meeting in the evening.

The Opposition then asked House Speaker Anġlu Farrugia to give a ruling after both sides failed to reach agreement on the way forward. Dr Farrugia said he would lose no time in handing down his decision, possibly during this evening’s parliamentary sitting.

Questions on the validity of the impeachment motion had been raised in a letter sent to Dr Farrugia last week by Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco, who argued all motions automatically expire at the end of a legislature.

The letter came in the wake of a decision by the Commission for the Administration of Justice that there was prima facie evidence the judge had behaved inappropriately.

The government and Opposition sides had agreed the Speaker should seek legal advice, and he read it out at the meeting.

Before discussion got under way, the Speaker announced that Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco had sent another letter in which he was contesting the validity of the impeachment motion on new legal grounds: that the MP who had filed it was no longer a member of the House.

Opposition deputy leader Mario de Marco cited a memorandum presented by former Speaker Lawrence Gonzi on April 21, 1996 to back his argument that the motion was still valid.

Dr Gonzi had argued that the only motion which could be carried over from one legislature to another was that of impeachment. Dr de Marco also cited sections of Erskine May to back his claim.

However, Labour MP Deborah Schembri said they could not base such a decision on this memorandum as it was not a proper ruling.

Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House Louis Grech and government Whip Carmelo Abela insisted that before proceeding any further they had to know what legal advice the Speaker had been given.

This would ensure that their decision would be on a sound legal footing.

The Opposition insisted the government needed to say what legal advice it had been given, as agreed in the previous meeting. After a prolonged debate Dr Grech said the advice was that the motion was no longer valid.

They then turned to the Speaker and Dr Farrugia said his advice was that such a decision had serious constitutional implications so it was crucial to interpret the law in the correct manner. The Commission for the Justice Administration Act of 1994 did not stipulate any special rule for this kind of motion, and thus it had to be treated like all other parliamentary motions.

He said that, according to Standing Order 38, the MP who filed the motion had to be present during the debate or at least another member had to be delegated in his absence.

In addition, it was also standard procedure in the House of Commons that all motions were declared ‘dead’ when Parliament was dissolved, he said.

“In the present case, not only was Parliament dissolved after the impeachment motion was filed, but the MP is no longer part of the House,” the Speaker said.

In view of this, the impeachment motion was “dead”.

Dr Farrugia also pointed out that, in the case of the impeachment of Mr Justice Anton Depasquale in 2001, the motion was carried over from a previous legislature as the MP who had filed it, former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami, was still a member of the House when the debate took place.

As a result it was argued that current circumstances were “not comparable” with those of Dr Depasquale.

The advice also said that no previous ruling had been given on such a matter but only an opinion. The House could revive the motion by filing a fresh one, but it was noted that this would require that all proceedings would have to start again from the beginning, the Speaker said.

Dr Grech said that in view of this advice they were ready to file a new motion, so as “not to lose time and continue with the impeachment proceedings”.

At one point Mr Abela was even going to give notice of the motion, only for the Speaker to warn him not to act with such haste but to wait for the outcome of the meeting.

Opposition MP David Agius asked whether this would mean the case would have to be investigated from scratch by the Commission. After a prolonged discussion Dr de Marco asked the Speaker for a ruling.

The House Business Committee yesterday also agreed to hold four sittings to debate the motion tabled by the Opposition to repeal the legal notice for the introduction of the Individual Investor Programme.

The Speaker warned that by law the debate had to be concluded within 28 days from the presentation of the motion, and so not later than February 9.

The two sides agreed to hold discussions to try and find suitable dates for the debate, or else they would have to convene the committee with urgency.