Nationalist MP Beppe Fenech Adami, a parliamentary assistant in the Ministry of Home Affairs, this evening delivered a stout defence of his boss when he spoke on the second day of the debate on an Opposition censure motion against Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici.

"I am proud to have worked as parliamentary assistant under Dr Mifsud Bonnici. That gave me a unique insight of his work," Dr Fenech Adami said.

Earlier, when replying to Opposition queries, Acting Speaker Censu Galea said the Chair would rule at the appropriate time on whether an amendment to the censure motion was acceptable. The Opposition yesterday tried to amend the motion in order to call for the minister's resignation. The government objected and requested the ruling, arguing that an amendment which changed the nature of a motion was unacceptable under House rules. Mr Galea pointed out that he never said the ruling would be delivered today but 'in another sitting'.

Dr Fenech Adami, speaking first about the police, said the rule of law was one of the government's priorities and the Police Force currently enjoyed the highest level of human resources. Officers left the force after 25 years of service, but Dr Mifsud Bonnici had ensured there was a constant stream of recruitment at all levels. Dr Mifsud Bonnici had also ensured that policemen were adequately trained at the much improved Police Academy. Investment had also been made to ensure that the police were adequately equipped as crime became more sophisticated. More than €1m had been invested in DNA equipment and there was also investment in fingerprinting equipment, the testing of alcohol levels, the dogs section and the cavalry as well as transport. Police stations had been upgraded.

The situation was very different from the demoralised corps which Labour MP Michael Falzon tried to paint yesterday. The police force was motivated, and efficient, and as a result Malta could boast of bringing down the crime rate by 5% from what it was over the past year while in other countries the crime rate was going up.

Somebody else appeared focused on giving rights to criminals but the government's main aim was to fight crime in all its forms. Over the past four years, 600 were arraigned for drug trafficking and 1,200 for possession. This was testimony of Dr Mifsud Bonnici's work.

Over the past four years, Dr Fenech Adami said, a characteristic of Dr Mifsud Bonnici's work was focused on protecting the most vulnerable and the innocent victims of crime, such as children.

Dr Falzon had not said anything of the hard work done to protect children. The minister piloted tough legislation against child exploitation and paedophilia, including internet crime.

Malta, like other countries, had said major cases of abuse of children who were in the care of supposedly trusted people. The minister had acted, therefore by introducing the Register for the Protection of Minors.

While others spoke on matters which were not important, even trivial, the minister was working of the sort of legislation which the country needed.

This was exemplified too in legislation on domestic violence.

THE CIVIL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT - Saving lives

Dr Fenech Adami said that Dr Falzon yesterday had spoken on the small picture with regard to the Civil Protection Department, while failing to acknowledge the success of this department, and of the minister. While problems existed in every department, the CPD was involved in over 500 rescues, saving many lives over the past few years.

Last year Malta faced the pressures caused by the Libyan turmoil, including a flood of hundreds of evacuated workers, and the CPD rose to the occasion and made the country proud – a far cry from the situation in the department which Dr Falzon had spoken about.

One of the milestones of Dr Mifsud Bonnici's work, Dr Fenech Adami said, was his work on the enactment of the Reparative Justice Act. He had introduced the concept of victim compensation from the criminals and also had the courage to introduce the institute of parole. These were important steps which had to be taken gradually because they were sensitive issues which society had to adjust to. It was for this reason that this important reform was not bulldozed through. Prison inmates had to be prepared to return to society, in the same way as society had to be prepared to receive them. But this counted for nothing for the opportunistic opposition.

Dr Fenech Adami said he strongly disagreed with the way Dr Falzon had spoken about the prisons. This area too had seen major reforms and investment, ensuring the inmates paid for their crimes while ensuring that those who could reform themselves were able to do so.

JUSTICE - Milestone legislation in various sectors

The Opposition's motion, Dr Fenech Adami, also pointed to a disaster in the justice sector, yet the examples brought forward were trivial, such as the fact that judges were not present for two national events, creating 'tension'. The Opposition should know that the government and the judiciary were holding talks on improving the conditions of judges. What should be more worrying was how, for example Evarist Bartolo, speaking on radio, said that he had no confidence in the judges and magistrates. So what would happen if he became a minister?

Dr Fenech Adami recalled reforms in the law courts including the setting up of the Family Court. Dr Mifsud Bonnici had also piloted major reforms in Civil and Criminal Law.

The PL could hardly speak of justice, with a Labour government having suspended the Constitutional Court and treated the judges to musical chairs.

Touching on illegal immigration, Dr Fenech Adami said the minister had acted responsibly, and contrary to what the Opposition appeared to want, no one was allowed to drift on the high seas and thanks to the ministry's work, hundreds of migrants had been repatriated.

Concluding, Dr Fenech Adami said that Dr Mifsud Bonnici had carried out his duties to the full and Malta's justice and home affairs sectors were now far better than before.

DITHERING OVER LEGAL AMENDMENTS

Dr Fenech Adami was followed by Opposition Justice spokesman Jose' Herrera who insisted that the Opposition was within its rights to propose an amendment to the censure motion, calling for the minister's resignation. He quoted from Erskine May to argue that the amendment did not change the nature of the motion. A censure motion in British parliamentary practice had the same importance as a confidence vote, and the amendment was thus only reinforcing this point.

Turning to various aspects of the justice sector, Dr Herrera referred to legal assistance to people under interrogation and said that the fact that Dr Mifsud Bonnici was both minister of justice and of home affairs had created a problem. This was not a case of giving rights to criminals. In 2002 the government realised that the law needed to be improved. Amendments were moved, but the minister, responsible for both home affairs and justice, could not take a decision and the law was not brought into force.The minister had said he would first await police reforms, particularly with regard to forensics.

Interjecting, Franco Debono said the minister had said he had agreed - colluded - with Labour for the law not to be brought into force. This was very worrying, Dr Debono said.

Continuing, Dr Herrera said that those words might have been said, as well as what he had said.

He said the minister was eventually taken over by events as the courts delivered various sentences in Malta and in Strasbourg, annulling the validity of statements given to the police. As a result of the government's dithering, trials were brought to a half and accused persons were acquitted in important cases. This was something which demanded political accountability, whether it was the minister or the government as a whole.

While one could understand that the government had to act cautiously to ensure that both prosecutors and the defence had the tools they needed, the government could not be undecided as developments evolved in Malta and abroad.

The right to legal aid to arrested persons had to be accompanied by   the right of inference and the concept of full disclosure. However the way the law was introduced in Malta was incomplete and the backlash was expected to continue before the courts.

Dr Herrera said another issue which was worrying the Opposition and was mentioned in the motion, was how the Constitutional Court struck down certain legislation, but the government did not remedy the situation. Among such cases, was how the court found that mandatory arbitration was unconstitutional. The government prepared legislative amendments but did not bring them into force, and many cases were now in legal limbo.

DNA SERVICES

Dr Herrera said the Opposition was worried by the fact that the government was using a private company for DNA services. It was about time that the government invested on its own database so that such private and sensitive information was not held by a private company.

It was also surprising that the forensic department fell under the Consumer Affairs Department. What sense did this make? Furthermore, no significant investment had been made here in 20 years.

Dr Herrera argued that scene of the crime officers should be answerable to inquiring magistrates, not the police, and he agreed that there should be a separation between inquiring magistrates and those who sat in judgement.

Dr Herrera said that while he agreed with parole, the way the system was being introduced was not satisfactory and a better job could have been done.

The Labour MP also spoke briefly on 'subtle interference' in the work of the judges through the way judicial appointments were made, with seniority and merit being ignored.

Dr Francis Zammit Dimech (PN) accused the Opposition of opportunism in the way it had presented this motion as political developments took place.

Interjecting, Nationalist MP Franco Debono said he had presented his own motion a month before the Opposition's motion, but he was discriminated against in that it was the Opposition motion which was brought to the agenda. His motion, Dr Debono said, was a positive one with 22 proposals for reform.

Continuing, Dr Zammit Dimech said the whole tone of the Opposition motion was very different from Dr Debono's. The motion by Dr Debono called for reforms  and the government itself recognised that these were valid points for constructive discussion which could lead to conclusions. Indeed the government had moved a bill.

Interjecting again, Dr Debono said the bill moved by the minister was presented without consultation and although it purported to address some of the points he had raised, it addressed them badly.

Continuing, Dr Debono said that once a bill was presented, MPs could move amendments on the subject matter and then the majority would decide.

On a point of order, Opposition leader Joseph Muscat noted that the government yesterday objected to an amendment.

Dr Zammit Dimech said he was speaking on amendments on matters which were proposed in a bill. Dr Muscat was speaking about an opposition motion to its own motion, leading him to suspect that either the opposition disagreed with its own motion, or it had forgotten how to write motions.

But the important thing was that the Opposition motion was not constructive but destructive and the opposition even wanted the minister to resign.

The motion spoke of a precarious situation in the sectors of justice and home affairs. Political responsibility for home affairs and justice had been split, but the opposition had not moved an amendment to update its motion in this area.

PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF SOCIETY

The government, Dr Zammit Dimech said, had to take whatever action was needed to safeguard the rights of people under investigation - indeed, the situation was very different from the time when people were beaten and even killed while under police custody. But the government also had to safeguard the rights of wider society including the rights of the victims of crime. The government had a duty to ensure that there was a balance.

Dr Herrera in speaking about problems in the justice sector had spoken against mandatory arbitration, yet the concept was introduced by the Labour government itself, in the Condominia Act.

The Opposition motion also complained of court delays. Yet the number of pending cases in all the courts was sharply down, thanks to the initiatives taken by minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici. Those initiatives included the system of official letter for the recovery of debts, which had been criticised by Labour but turned out to be effective.

It was worrying that the Opposition motion criticised the government because judges took long to issue decrees in certain cases such as separations. Did the opposition expect the government to interfere in the way the judges went about their work? This was what this motion implied. How could a minister be held responsible for everything that happened in court while, at the same time saying that the courts should be independent? 

Dr Zammit Dimech praised Dr Mifsud Bonnici for his firm and determined action on illegal immigration, which had led to the transfer of hundreds of migrants to other countries and introduced the concept of burden sharing in the EU.

INTEGRITY COMES FIRST

Concluding, Dr Zammit Dimech said that beyond what was said in this motion, MPs should ask themselves whether they wanted to be associated with a motion which was negative, vindictive and showed hatred, rather than being positive, serious and which made proposals and alternatives. But more than anything else, for him personally, Dr Zammit Dimech said, the issue was one of personal integrity, which was not lacking in Dr Mifsud Bonnici.

Values should come before opportunism and the Opposition should be mindful that it would be judged by the way it put short term advantage over what was the most important.