I take issue with the wording used in the article ‘President’s unclear role: perfectly legal, says PM’ (March 6), where it is said that “Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has insisted that putting her (the president-to-be) in charge of numerous commissions...” The keyword here is, of course, “putting”.

How can the Prime Minister decide where to “put” the figure in whom sole executive authority is constitutionally invested? I am well aware of the ceremonial role of our president and of the divide between constitutional roles and real ones (it is not uncommon for presidential systems to have constitutions which reflect a parliamentary democracy, and vice versa: this is an issue which has been tackled academically by many political experts) but still do not think the wording used in the article is justified, at least not constitutionally justified.

I might prove to be wrong, however. Can an expert in these matters enlighten us? It could prove very interesting.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.