The government has informed the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee that it intends to invite Luxembourg Prime Minster Jean-Claude Juncker and former Nato Secretary General Javier Solana among other witnesses to give evidence before the committee when it discusses the Opposition censure motion against Richard Cachia Caruana, Malta's permanent representative to the European Union.

The proposed list of witnesses, which also includes Prime Minister Gonzi, Nato and EU officials and members of Malta's defence secretariat within the Office of the Prime Minister, was presented when the committee held a stormy meeting to discuss the procedure it will follow for its hearings.

The Opposition is claiming in its motion that a document published by Wikileaks showed that in 2004 Mr Cachia Caruana had talks with Nato officials, during which he discussed ways of reactivating Malta's membership of Partnership for Peace, behind Parliament's back.

The government has denied the claim, insisting that the talks were solely about Malta being given access to Nato documents.

At the beginning of the sitting, Opposition foreign affairs spokesman George Vella complained of unacceptable attempts at intimidation by the government, aimed at undermining parliamentary scrutiny.

He said that he was basing his remarks on a government  statement yesterday which claimed that the opposition was turning parliament into a kangaroo court or a criminal court. This, he said, was not the case.

Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said the attacks had been made by the Opposition on the government, which used an individual to attack the administration and even made accusations of betrayal.

Dr Borg said the opposition's premise in the motion was mistaken, as would be shown as the facts were established.

And as for conflicts, the Opposition was first against PfP and it was now no longer against.

Committee chairman Francis Zammit Dimech said the government statement followed a story in the Labour media that he had had a meeting with Mr Cachia Caruana on today's meeting, something which he had repeatedly denied.

Leo Brincat (MLP) questioned how Foreign Minister Borg was attending this meeting, saying he could have a conflict of interest.

Dr Borg said he had no conflict of interest since this was nothing personal, and furthermore he had not been foreign minister in 2004. Furthermore, he was a member of the committee and was not prepared to give up his right to attend. 

Dr Vella said the purpose of the Opposition motion was not about PfP membership but the actions of a public officer who had 'manifestly' worked in a way which sidestepped parliamentary scrutiny.

Dr Zammit Dimech said the context could not be excluded.

Dr Borg said the government intended to produce witnesses to speak about the 2004 meetings since the Opposition had claimed that Mr Cachia Caruana had worked to meet the interests of foreign governments more than Malta's, something which implied treason. (interruptions). The witnesses had to be related to these events to show how the premise of the Opposition was completely false.

In giving the list of 21 witnesses, he said that included Dr Gonzi, then foreign minister Michael Frendo, then parliamentary secretary Tony Abela, Mr Cachia Caruana, a number of Maltese ambassadors, former US ambassadors Gioia and Bordonaro, officials at the Maltese legal office in the EU and other government officials. 

An argument then ensued, with the Opposition insisting that Mr Cachia Caruana should be interviewed first. The opposition wanted to establish how he was acting and whether he was following government instructions.

Dr Borg said the Prime Minister should be questioned first.

Dr Vella objected, insisting it was the actions of Mr Cachia Caruana which were being scrutinised.

Luciano Busuttil (PL) said the government should explain the relevance of the witnesses and who would pay for their trip to Malta.

Dr Zammit Dimech said they could give evidence through video-conferencing or other means without having to come to Malta.

Dr Borg said the prime minister would explain government policy on Partnership for Peace in 2004 (opposition MPs insist their motion is not about PfP) Dr Borg said it needs to be explained that there was no intention in 2004 to take Malta back in PfP.

Dr Zammit Dimech said the context in which Mr Cachia Caruana was acting was very relevant.

Dr Vella said the whole point as that Mr Cachia Caruana was acting undemocratically and avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

Dr Borg said the motion accused Mr Cachia Caruana of working in the interests of other countries, and that he had sidestepped parliament. The witnesses would show that was not the case. It would also be shown that the Opposition's claims were wrong because the government had not intended to take Malta back in PfP in 2004.

Leo Brincat (PL) said this hearing had been hijacked by the foreign minister even before the Opposition presented its motion. He insisted that Mr Cachia Caruana should be questioned first. He should defend his actions before others tried to do it for him. Dr Busuttil said the original proposal was for the committee to meet in order that Mr Cachia Caruana could explain himself. Therefore he should speak first.

Dr Borg said the prime minister should be the first to explain, in order to explain the context in 2004 and also to explain how Malta's representatives used to be asked to leave meetings when Nato documents were discussed.

After heated exchanges, Dr Borg formally proposed that the committee should meet tomorrow and hear Dr Gonzi first. The Opposition objected, insisting that Mr Cachia Caruana should be heard first.

Dr Zammit Dimech said the matter should be put to the vote.

Dr Vella said the vote should be taken in the plenary.

A fresh argument then developed over where the vote should be taken. Labour whip Joe Mizzi said he would request a ruling from the Speaker.

The stormy debate then continued in the Chamber, with Mr Mizzi insisting that the committee had no right to take a vote, and government speakers insisted that it did.

The Speaker said he would give a ruling at another sitting.

The sitting of the committee was then suspended pending the ruling of the Speaker.