When Nationalist Party MPs walked out of Parliament on Tuesday night in protest at the Speaker’s decision over a breach of privilege complaint against Simon Busuttil, some people expressed surprise.

But for those who follow parliamentary procedures, a walkout by MPs is nothing new.

It is “an emphatic form of protest”, according to former Nationalist minister Michael Falzon, who witnessed numerous walkouts during his 20-year parliamentary career.

However, he said the Opposition now had to convince the public that the protest was justified.

Referring to Dr Busuttil’s statement that it was a political judgement, Dr Falzon said he needed to produce evidence.

“It is equivalent to what [former Labour leader] Alfred Sant had once said – that he was morally convinced there was corruption,” he said.

“Moral convictions and political judgments mean nothing unless substantiated with proof.”

Tuesday’s issue revolved around Dr Busuttil’s accusation of political interference in the John Dalli case by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, after former Police Commissioner John Rizzo testified in court.

Mr Rizzo revealed that he intended prosecuting Mr Dalli – and had the Attorney General’s backing – over a tobacco scandal that led to the former European Commissioner’s forced resignation last year.

He could not proceed because Mr Dalli was abroad and certified too unwell to travel.

Mr Rizzo’s decision was subsequently reversed by his successor, Peter Paul Zammit, who was appointed by the Prime Minister weeks after the March election.

Former Labour Prime Minister Alfred Sant said the walkout on Tuesday made ‘no political sense’.

Former Prime Minister Alfred Sant defended his actions while he was still an MP, saying that whenever he spoke, he did so out of a moral conviction of corruption based on logical conclusions drawn from the facts at hand.

“You have to go beyond facts and draw a logical sequence that leads you to reach a certain political judgement, and I haven’t seen this happening,” Dr Sant said.

“The Opposition walked out after the Speaker delivered a ruling and this makes no political sense, because the walkout targets the Speaker,” he added.

Ċensu Galea.

But veteran Nationalist MP Ċensu Galea disagreed. He insisted that there is no way a ruling can be contested there and then, which is why the PN parliamentary group later presented a motion contesting the Speaker’s decision.

He said the walkout was a means of showing disapproval but his biggest question mark rested with Dr Muscat’s actions to lodge a breach of privilege complaint.

Mr Galea, who has often spoken against the privilege that MPs have to say what they want with impunity in Parliament, believes this case was the opposite of what would normally happen.

“Simon Busuttil had already expressed the same political judgment outside Parliament three days earlier and the Prime Minister did not take action.

“I found it strange that Dr Muscat then raised the breach of privilege when the same declaration was made in Parliament,” he said.

It is a question also raised by former PN MP Michael Bonnici, who served as deputy speaker between 1995 and 2003.

Mr Bonnici said the Prime Minister had every right to raise the complaint if he felt offended by the comments.

“But I cannot understand why he did not institute libel proceedings as he had every right to do when the statement was made outside Parliament,” he added.

But for historian Henry Frendo, the events that unfolded in Parliament boil down to the Maltese way of doing politics.

He believes the whole affair is an “overreaction by all sides”.

After all it was the Prime Minister who used a breach of privilege complaint to counteract Dr Busuttil’s allegation, which some may argue is protected by parliamentary privilege.

Some even query whether we should do away with parliamentary privilege

Prof. Frendo said breach of privilege was an archaic system inherited from colonial times. “Some even query whether we should do away with parliamentary privilege.”

But he is not convinced of the Speaker’s ruling because on one hand he argued for freedom of expression but then gave a ruling that effectively accepted the breach of privilege complaint.

A walkout is “a dramatic gesture” to attract attention to the Opposition’s presence in Parliament and the country, he adds.

“Whether it is the best response is arguable but the question has to be asked what else could they have done?”

Prof. Frendo said: “I think the Prime Minister might have been better advised to tear into the Opposition leader’s statements, especially if ulterior motive was implied and there is no proof to back it up.”

People would then reach their own political judgement, he said.

ksansone@timesofmalta.com