Lawyers representing Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco have written to the Speaker arguing that the impeachment motion presented by then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi (in December 2012) was no longer valid since Malta now had a new parliament and a new prime minister, and Dr Gonzi was no longer even a member of the House.

The lawyers also pointed out that proceedings were still pending on a Constitutional application which had called for the withdrawal of two members of the Commission for the Administration of Justice. A decision on this matter could have a bearing on the composition of the Commission and its report on the impeachment motion.

The lawyers also complained that the judge had still not received a copy of the report and what he knew came from the media.

The lawyers' letter was read out at a meeting of the House Business Committee this evening.

The Justice Commission in a report to the Speaker on Monday said it had investigated the allegations made in the impeachment motion presented by Dr Gonzi and found there was prima facie proven misbehaviour.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat immediately declared that the impeachment proceedings would be continued without delay.

Speaker Anglu Farrugia said a copy of the report was being sent to the judge immediately. He expressed his disappointment that the media learnt of the content of the commission's report before him and before the prime minister and the leader of the opposition.

Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech said the committee should seek legal advice on the two legal points raised.

Deputy Opposition leader Mario de Marco said that while there was no difficulty in seeking legal advice, but he saw no need for it.

He pointed out that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat had already declared that the impeachment proceedings against Judge Farrugia Sacco would be 'continued'. Therefore, this was a technicality. The prime minister had said the proceedings  would be continued. If the motion was not valid, Dr Muscat could move a new one and continue it.

Furthermore, during the impeachment proceedings against Judge Depasquale, the impeachment motion had been carried over two administrations. 

Speaker Anglu Farrugia said the motion against Judge Depasquele was presented in the seventh legislature, entered in the motions book and carried over in two legislatures to be debated in 2001. That motion had been presented by Dr Fenech Adami, who was still in the House in 2001.

However in the latest case, Dr Gonzi was no longer an MP. Could a motion of this kind be reactivated?

Dr de Marco said an impeachment motion was the only motion which remained valid from one legislature to another. And in any case, the prime minister had agreed that the process should be continued. Starting all over again would complicate matters needlessly, more so when the Commission had presented its report under the new administration.

The House Business Committee should agree to confirm its recognition of the motion and continue the proceedings, as the same committee had agreed in the Depasquale committee had done, and in line with what Dr Muscat had said.

Mr Grech said he was not disagreeing with Dr de Marco but would feel more comfortable if he was given legal advice.

Labour MPs Deborah Schembri and Carmelo Abela both stressed that parliament should act in a way which could not challenged.   In terms of what the prime minister had said, there was no doubt as to where the House was heading but it needed to be ensured that the procedure was sound.

David Agius (PN) said the House in terms of its rules had to consider the report of the Commission for the Administration of Justice, as otherwise it would also be breaking procedure.

Dr Schembri said impeachment needed a motion.

Dr de Marco said the Speaker could hold his consultations and the matter would be taken up from there. However in view of the prime minister's declaration, one should not give the impression that the House was delaying.

Mr Grech said no one wanted delay. The Chair should look into the matter and report to the House Business Committee.

The Speaker said that in the Depasquale proceedings it was the committee which decided that the impeachment motion would stand, not the Speaker. The Speaker would decide if the committee did not.

Dr de Marco said the committee should decide, as it had done in the Depasquale case.

Mr Grech said Dr de Marco's original point was whether the committee would be on sound legal footing if it decided to continue the proceedings.

Dr Schembri said she wanted to be morally convinced that justice was being served, on merit and procedure.

Dr de Marco suggested a postponement of the decision to another meeting. That would also give time for all sides to consider the legal position.

Both David Agius and Carmelo Abela agreed that notwithstanding the legal advice, the ultimate decision was Parliament's, which regulated its own position and proceedings.

The committee put off the decision to January 27.