Speaker Anġlu Farrugia yesterday turned down an Opposition request for the House to be adjourned to urgently debate the disagreement between the Ombudsman and Minister for Home Affairs.
The dispute is over whether the Ombudsman can hear cases submitted by armed forces officers.
The request was made by Opposition leader Simon Busuttil who said that the disagreement was serious. The Ombudsman had also complained that the Armed Forces of Malta was withholding documents and information from him, thus hindering his investigations.
He said the issue was definite, of public importance and urgent as per Standing Order 13. He was prompted by “unusual events” that had seen the Ombudsman, holding a constitutional post and an appointee of Parliament, file a protest before the courts.
Dr Busuttil said former European Court Judge Giovanni Bonello had called the case “a matter of constitutional crisis”. Government Whip Carmelo Abela said one of the three requisites for such an adjournment, urgency, was not there because, as Dr Busuttil himself had said, the event had happened “in the past weeks”.
Dr Busuttil said the government’s counter-protest had become known only last Friday, so this was the first available opportunity for the matter to be raised in Parliament. The Ombudsman needed Parliament’s protection.
Mr Abela said the government had no objection to the matter being debated but the date would be discussed and agreed on in the House Business Committee.
Replying, Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia said there was no need for such a debate to be held with urgency under standing order 13. Nor could this be defined as a ‘definite matter’ because it involved the interpretation of a law, with the Office of the Ombudsman having changed its position from its original interpretation.
The government wanted a solution. His argument was that the Armed Forces of Malta Act was clear and the government was acting under the same interpretation made by the former government. Therefore there was no urgency for the debate. The issue should be debated, but in due time. He also pointed out that after the Ombudsman presented a judicial protect he had also filed a counter-protest.
Dr Busuttil said the matter was definite and was a concern to people, and Dr Bonello had even described it as a constitutional crisis. If that did not make it urgent, what did?
As to Dr Mallia’s claim that the same had happened under the PN, there never before was a situation where the government interfered in the work of the Ombudsman and therefore the Ombudsman had not felt the need to file a judicial protest against the then government.
Labour whip Carmelo Abela said the government was not against holding a debate, but a date should be agreed in the House Business Committee.
The sitting was suspended for about an hour for the Speaker to give a ruling.
In his ruling, Dr Farrugia, said the request could only be upheld if the matter was definite, of public importance and urgent. The first two requisites were met.
As for urgency, Dr Farrugia referred to previous rulings, including one by Speaker Lawrence Gonzi, where he said that urgency had to be such that circumstances could change if the debate was not held.
He said the Chair was of the view that this issue was not one of urgency that merited immediate debate and the Opposition’s request was therefore being turned down.
He expressed the hope that agreement could be reached on a date for the debate.