The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Anglu Farrugia, said this evening that according to legal advice he had been given, the motion for the impeachment of Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, presented in the last Parliament by then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi was 'dead' since it was presented in a different legislature and the MP who had presented it was no longer a member of the House.
The Opposition disagreed with the advice and Deputy Opposition leader Mario de Marco requested a ruling. The ruling will be delivered in another sitting.
Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech said the government was prepared to present a new motion, even today, but Nationalist MP David Agius expressed fears that that would mean starting procedures all over again, including referral to the Commission for the Administration of Justice.
The issue over whether the motion was still valid was raised last week by Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco in a letter to the Speaker. He argued that Malta now had a new parliament, a new administration and a new prime minister, and Dr Lawrence Gonzi, who had presented the impeachment motion, was no longer an MP. Therefore, the motion was no longer valid.
Justice Farrugia Sacco’s lawyers sent a second letter to the Speaker today, again insisting that the motion was no longer valid and giving examples of past cases as well as quoting standing orders.
In the legal advice he read before the House Business Committee, the Speaker said a motion was linked to the member who presented it. If he was not present he could delegate somebody else on his behalf.
It was the practice of the House that motions were not carried over from one parliament to another. There was an instance, involving Judge Depasquale when a notion was carried over from one legislature to another, but the MP who presented it was still serving in the House.
Therefore the advice was that this motion was dead, although both sides could agree to restore it, as if it was a new motion.
Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech said that once the motion was dead and no longer valid, the government was prepared to present a new motion.
Mr Agius asked whether the presentation of a new motion would mean that the Commission for the Administration of Justice would have to be asked to report on the case once more.
The Speaker said the procedure had to be followed according to law.
Mr Agius said he totally disagreed with the need to present a new motion. The advice that the Opposition had been given was that the original motion was still valid. What was going on meant that the government did not really intend moving fast on the impeachment motion, as it had declared.
Mr Grech said the advice given to the government also said that the impeachment motion was not valid.
Dr de Marco said one needed to recall a memorandum by then Speaker Lawrence Gonzi on April 21, 1996 who established that a motion on impeachment could be carried over. The House Committee had then decided that the impeachment motion of the time (involving Judge Depasquale) remained valid.
Erskine May (21st edition) also established that an impeachment motion was carried over from one legislature to another.
Earlier today, the Constitutional court rejected an appeal by Justice Farrugia Sacco requesting the abstention of two members of the Commission for the Administration of Justice.