I refer to Austin Bencini’s sober contribution (The Sunday Times of Malta) of May 26. I will limit myself briefly to his comments on what I wrote. He says I am “bedevilled” by the Constitution’s use of “bla effett” instead of the word “null”, in the supremacy clause. Bedevilled? For simply insisting on correctly quoting the Constitution? And there I was deluding myself that in order to understand what the Constitution means one must start with what it actually says.

He then concludes by inviting the Constitutional Court to “simply throw the dictionary away”, when he was the only one who regaled his readers with what this and the other dictionary says on this and the other word or phrase. Perhaps he should take his own advice.

On the contrary, in my contribution I referred for meaning to what the Constitution itself says and to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation. In this context I also referred to the distinction which article 116 of the Constitution makes in respect of the invalidity of laws and to the judgment of the Constitutional Court in H. Vassallo & Sons Limited v Avukat Ġenerali et. 2012 where that court explained in some detail its understanding of what the Constitution means.

But Bencini too is completely silent on these matters and gets all engrossed in the dictionary.

The position taken by the Constitutional Court is in no way in contradiction with the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution.

When the Constitutional Court interprets the Constitution and gives application to that interpretation it does no more and no less than give effect to the supremacy of the Constitution.

One may agree or disagree with the Constitutional Court’s interpretation but the Constitutional Court would be betraying the Constitution if it did not give effect to that interpretation which it has determined to be the right one – and this is true whether the supremacy principle needs to be expressly stated or is necessarily implicit.

I had intended not to come back to this matter in your newspaper but I was induced to reluctantly do so because in my view Bencini’s temperate contribution deserved a response from me. But now I will definitely withdraw and allow any further discussion to be continued by others without any further input from my side.