There are moments where the political class must stand up and put the interests of what is right before the interests of what scores most political points. I honestly thought that in the case of the disciplinary procedures being proposed against Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, the leader of the Opposition would leave politics out of it and do what is right.
Undoubtedly, Simon Busuttil made a name for himself as one of the most respected MEPs we ever had and I thought that, back in Malta, he would promote the most essential European values: fair hearing, democracy and respect to the rule of law.
A few months down the line, Busuttil was a huge disappointment. On the Individual Investor Programme issue, he smelled blood. So far, there is nothing wrong in trying to politically wound an opponent.
However, he completely miscalculated and misfired. Busuttil gave it away and, after some time, people read through him that he was single-mindedly obsessed with causing as much damage as possible to Joseph Muscat, little minding to what extent he had damaged Malta’s reputation in the process.
Ironically Muscat, with a little help from his best and most loyal guns in his inner circle, came out of the whole process stronger than before with a European Commission approval firmly tucked in his pocket and a blossoming fund on the horizon.
Busuttil, who until a few months ago was on the brink of calling for an abrogative referendum and a scrapping of the IIP, now has painted himself in a corner and had to limit himself to declaring that the case is now overtaken by events.
On the Farrugia Sacco issue, Busuttil is repeating the same mistake. It is plain obvious he is only interested in playing on people’s emotions and turn this into a political football, little caring about the damage to the judiciary’s reputation.
Let me make it clear: I think the judge should go and he should have already taken the most honourable way forward and resign.
Turning the matter into a political football is absolutely not on
If the Commission for the Administration of Justice makes a decision, this must be respected. Gone are the times when some members of the judiciary believe themselves to be untouchable or above anyone else.
The fact the judge spent more than five years refusing to abide by a decision of commission not to have anything to do with the Malta Olympic Committee is grave and alarming. Anyone who disagrees with the commission’s decisions is free to resign and return to private practice but as long as one forms part of the judiciary, the Commission must be fully respected.
Nevertheless, this does not mean the judge should not be granted the right to a fair hearing . This must be granted all the time according to the rules of democracy and the leader of the Opposition knows this well.
In my view, the Prime Minister has acted correctly throughout the whole affair and the PN is being utterly dishonest in accusing the government of delaying tactics. It is a bit rich to accuse the government of dragging its feet when Lawrence Gonzi wasted more than five years doing nothing on the issue and only filed a motion of impeachment in the dying days of the legislature.
On the other hand, when the Speaker , on the request of PN deputy leader Mario de Marco ruled that the motion of impeachment filed by Gonzi is “dead”, the Prime Minister immediately (that same evening) filed a fresh impeachment motion.
The commission was swift in referring back to Parliament the report it had just compiled during the proceedings of the “dead” motion.
Questions relating to fair hearing and due process immediately arose from various sectors and scholars: can the commission adopt a report which results from a “dead” motion?
Did the sitting members of the commission have the duty to recuse themselves and be substituted by their equivalents to ascertain due process? Did the judge have the right to, at least, make submissions before the report was sent to Parliament again?
Turning the matter into a political football is not on in this very delicate juncture.
Nevertheless, there are people of standing in Malta who, in difficult times, are ready to give some precious advice. I followed with interest what Giovanni Bonello had to say and I think he represents the voice of reason on the matter. Here is what he said:
“Technically speaking, I believe that Parliament has all the powers to proceed with the impeachment case of a judge even if this is challenged before the Constitutional Court. However, it would be prudent for Parliament to halt the proceedings should a case be filed. I believe that, normally, Parliament, in a spirit of prudence rather than on law, will await the Constitutional Court’s judgment before it takes the final decision.”
I appeal to the Opposition: stop turning the matter into a political football. The case is already difficult as it is. Put politics aside, stand up to be counted and make the right decisions.
Monica Farrugia is a member of the Labour Party’s national executive.