Opposition deputy leader Beppe Fenech Adami on Tuesday launched a vitriolic attack on the government for the way it has handled the cases of Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco and Magistrate Carol Peralta, saying it had not taken the issues seriously enough.
In an immediate reaction, government Whip Carmelo Abela described the Opposition’s accusations against the Speaker, and against the government in upholding the Chair’s ruling on the Farrugia Sacco case, as “unjust”.
Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Various Laws (Criminal Matters) Amendment Bill, Dr Fenech Adami said these cases had greatly undermined public trust in the judiciary.
Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco had been found guilty by the Commission for the Administration of Justice of breaking the judicial code of ethics. The government had delayed proceedings by delaying discussion of the motion.
Dr Fenech Adami called on the government to give it priority since the people were getting the message that even one who held such an important position could get off the hook easily.
Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici said the government would be prioritising the motion.
Continuing, Dr Fenech Adami said it was unacceptable that the government had not presented an impeachment motion against Magistrate Peralta.
It was unacceptable that a person in a public position formed part of a secret society, the Freemasons, and he called on the government to clarify its position. Parliament had to send a message that Freemasonry was unacceptable.
The magistrate’s position was untenable but the government had only asked the Commission for the Administration of Justice to investigate.
Dr Bonnici again pointed out that one had to be true to the facts, adding that he had requested the commission to investigate whether Magistrate Peralta had acted unconstitutionally, with the most serious allegation being that of illegal arrest for three hours of a journalist from Times of Malta.
Dr Fenech Adami maintained the government had failed to present a censure motion.
Mr Abela accused the Opposition of adopting a “two-weights, two-measures” policy, adhering to the Justice Commission’s decision on the judge while taking a victim’s role on the Opposition leader’s breach of privilege.
The victim in this latter case was the Prime Minister because Dr Busuttil failed to substantiate his allegations.
Interjecting on a point of order, Dr Busuttil accused the government of holding a bogus court session (qorti fazulla) to find him guilty of a breach of privilege complaint because it had a majority in the House. On the contrary, Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco’s case had been decided by an independent commission. The Speaker dismissed the point of order.
Mr Abela replied that the breach of privilege had been decided through a ruling given by the Speaker and subsequently a motion had been approved under the same regulations which applied in similar cases under different Nationalist administrations.
He said that although the Justice Commission had informed Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco of a breach of the code of ethics in 2007, former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi presented the impeachment motion only five years later when his government had already lost its majority in the House on the Budget and when the election campaign had informally started.
Mr Abela accused the Opposition of applying the majority rule only when it was convenient for them.
On the contrary the Prime Minister presented the commission’s decision immediately after he had learnt about it but had rightfully decided to move forward according to the Constitution and the law. The House Business Committee was discussing the procedure to be adopted.
Dr Gonzi as presenter of the impeachment motion had resigned from the House and no other member took ownership of the motion. The government wanted to continue the process under clear regulations. Both sides had contrasting advice on the validity of the impeachment motion and the Opposition had requested a ruling from the Speaker which was not contested. The Opposition could not accuse the government of anything untoward because it adhered to the ruling.
Earlier, Mr Abela said the Bill aimed to implement legal measures adopting EU directives, which the Nationalist administration failed to present even though they had come into force between 2010 and 2012. The Nationalist government had acted shamefully even though it boasted continuously of its European credentials.