The Labour Party has been given one last chance to summon all its witnesses in the Constitutional Court case over the extra parliamentary seats being requested by the Nationalist Party due to a general election vote counting mistake.
Madame Justice Lorraine Schembri Orland, who is presiding this case, told PL deputy leader Toni Abela to ensure that all remaining witnesses be present for the next sitting on January 29.
During today’s sitting, former PN general secretary Chris Said, along with mathematician Anthony Buhagiar and Electoral Committee secretary George Saliba took the witness stand to answer questions put to them by Dr Abela.
Last month, the court reprimanded Dr Abela, remarking that his “unprofessional behaviour” had caused unnecessary delays in a case which had a “vital” bearing on the Maltese people.
The judge made this remark after Dr Abela failed to summon any witnesses on behalf of the PL even though the court had acquiesced to his request not to hold any sittings in October.
The case revolves around two mistakes in the counting of the general election votes.
On the eighth district, a packet of 50 votes belonging to PN candidate Claudette Buttigieg was mistakenly transferred to PN candidate Michael Asciak. Dr Asciak was eliminated and Labour’s Edward Scicluna was elected.
On the 13th district, 10 votes belonging to PN candidate Frederick Azzopardi went missing and Labour’s Justyne Caruana was elected.
The PN instituted court proceedings against the Electoral Commission and the Attorney General, claiming the mistakes affected the outcome of the election result and requested to be awarded the two seats.
The First Hall has already ruled on the PN’s case and ordered the Electoral Commission to award two additional seats to the PN.
But at the end of last May, the Constitutional Court annulled that decision, upholding Labour’s argument that it should have been included in the case, and sent the case back to the First Hall, now presided by Madam Justice Lorraine Schembri Orland.
Subsequently, the PL filed its new claim objecting to the part of the Constitutional Court’s decision finding that the First Hall has jurisdiction over the case.
The PL said the Constitutional Court deprived it of making its arguments on that point in breach of its right to a fair hearing and called on the First Hall to provide a remedy.