The two major political parties this morning made the final submissions in the Nationalist Party's court case in which it is asking for two parliamentary seats due to a general election vote counting mistake. 

Former PN general secretary and lawyer Paul Borg Olivier argued that this case was about people's free democratic choices. "We are dealing with a case in which a mistake has led to a result which does not reflect the people's choices. The PN should have been allocated two additional seats," Dr Borg Olivier said.

He noted that in the 8th and 13th districts the PN had not won the majority of seats, in spite of obtaining the majority of votes.

Dr Borg Oliver said the electoral commission should have opened not only the previous count to correct the mistake, but earlier ones in line with the English version of the law. He recounted that in a local council election in 1996 such interpretation of the law had been made by the commission.

On his part, former PL deputy leader Toni Abela noted there were few remedies in the law to directly address any mistakes in the electoral process. In such cases the option was to seek redress within three days in the Constitutional Court.

"You are threatening any future legislature with your actions. It is not up to this court to decide on such matters," he said.

"The PN is saying that any voter may file a complaint in court after three years, which would change the composition of parliament and result in political instability." 

Dr Abela noted that the PN was citing the wrong articles of the law which dealt with free elections not mistakes during the transfer of votes. Nevertheless, he said that the mistakes did not alter the people's wish on which party was to lead the country and the proportional representation in Parliament.

Dr Abela noted that the Maltese law was so liberal that it allowed every single voter the right to file such proceedings individually. He argued that this case should have been filed before the Constitutional Court and not the Civil Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction), as it dealt with an "extraordinary law".

The PL argued it was quite bizarre that the PN was filing a case against a commission which had been appointed by the same party when it was in government. The case should have been instituted against the state, Dr Abela said. 

Madam Justice Lorraine Schembri Orland is presiding the case. The case has been deferred to May 26 for judgment.