The Prime Minister has presented a new motion for the impeachment of Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco after the Speaker ruled this evening that a motion presented by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi in December 2012 was no longer valid.
The Speaker, Anglu Farrugia, in his ruling said the original motion was no longer valid because it could not be carried over from one legislature to another once debate on it had not started.
The motion could also not survive because Lawrence Gonzi, who had presented it, was no longer a member of the House, the Speaker said.
The ruling was requested by the Opposition yesterday after the judge wrote to the Speaker and questioned whether the impeachment was still valid since it was presented in a different legislature and now Malta had a new parliament, a new government and a new prime minister. It was also pointed out that then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who had presented the motion, was no longer a member of the House.
Dr Farrugia and Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech yesterday both said at a meeting of the House Business Committee that they had been given legal advice that the motion was no longer valid.
Mario de Marco, for the Opposition, had argued that an impeachment motion could be carried from one legislature to another, as had in fact happened when proceedings were started against Judge Anton Depasquale. (However in that case Dr Eddie Fenech Adami who presented the motion, had remained an MP).
In his ruling Dr Farrugia referred to previous rulings, the legal advice he had been given and the situation in the Commonwealth, where parliaments, like in Malta's case, are based on the Westminster model.
Dr Farrugia said three points needed to be addressed: whether the motion could be presented, whether it was still valid in a new parliament, and whether it was still valid once the proposer was no longer in the House.
In the Indian Parliament, an impeachment motion was carried over to a new parliament, but in that case, the debate had already started, and the proposers were still members of the House.
However the rules in Malta considered an impeachment motion like any other motion. This impeachment motion was presented a few days before Parliament was dissolved. Debate was not started and Dr Gonzi was now no longer in the House.
Had the Commission for the Administration of Justice completed its report before the election, the debate could have been started.
In the House of Commons, impeachment motions were carried over from one session of parliament to another, but not from one legislature to another.
Dr Farrugia said that he had participated in a Commonwealth Speakers' conference last week, where it was also agreed that an impeachment motion on which no debate would have started was not carried over to a new legislature.
Dr Farrugia said the law in Malta also linked a motion with the person who had presented it. Standing orders laid down that the member who presented a motion had to move it himself or delegate somebody to do it.
In this case, the motion could not be saved because Malta now had a new legislature, and Dr Gonzi was no longer a member of the House.This case, therefore, was different to the Depasquale case.
Although the two sides of the House could agree to reactive the motion, it would be considered as a new motion and the same procedures as a new motion would have to be followed, Dr Farrugia concluded.