At the opening of Parliament in June, the traditional address read out from the Speaker’s chair by President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, that was written by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, included a pledge that bound Parliament to begin the process which will lead to a constitutional convention intended to modernise national institutions and strengthen local democracy.

Going back to 2013, the Labour Party had already outlined the issue of a constitutional reform in its electoral manifesto of that year. A promise was made to hold a constitutional convention with a representation from the different political and social sectors, for the purpose of strengthening democracy, reducing partitocracy and giving birth to the Second Republic.

Had this promise been honoured, it would have provided an excellent opportunity to take a long, hard look at how key institutions responsible for democracy in Malta are operating, and implement measures based on wide participation and consensus to correct any deficiencies or shortcomings impeding them from functioning independently and impartially.

However, following Labour’s landslide electoral victory in 2013, instead of strengthening these institutions, the new government lost no time to lay a siege on them by placing party loyalists at their helm. The whole legislature was characterised by favourism, political nepotism and clientalism leading to deepening of political tribalism.

The wheels of justice turned exceedingly slow or did not turn at all, in cases of corruption scams and scandals involving certain high echelons and their close allies. The country experienced a collapse in the rule of law, which raised the concern of the European Parliament and led to a resolution of condemnation by the great majority of its members.

Muscat brought up the constitutional reform issue again last year, after calling a snap election nine months ahead of its due date amid public accusations of corruption involving high government officials.

Muscat admitted that his government had failed on good governance. But at the same time he gave his assurance, for the second time, that if he were given the electorate’s trust to lead the country once again, he would carry out a constitutional change so that wrongdoing by public officials would be censored immediately and taken out of the hands of any future prime minister.

After managing to secure a second landmark electoral victory, despite having gone back on practically all his previous pre-electoral promises, Muscat is once again dragging his feet and saying that a deadline should not be imposed for the conclusion of discussions on a constitutional reform.

He has in fact rejected a proposal by the Opposition to conclude the reform by June 2019, under the pretext that it would have to be bigger than initially presumed.

The government has at the same time continued to procrastinate on the implementation of the Standards in Public Life Act, that was passed two months before the last election after being left hanging in Parliament as a Bill for three years.

The main objective of this legislation is to provide for the appointment of a commissioner with the power to investigate breaches of statutory or ethical duties of members of Parliament and other persons in public life, and of a standing committee to ensure that the commissioner is fulfilling his duties and operating efficiently. The Opposition’s support is essential since the commissioner requires the approval of not less than two-thirds of all MPs.

There could be no doubt that the Public Service Commission has a heavy burden of responsibility to carry in this case, that has brought the police force into disrepute

As the government continues with its delaying tactics, State institutions responsible for democracy continue to be hijacked by the same government, with the result that the elementary and indispensable principal of equality before the law keeps being set aside.

A case in point that has generated a lot of public outrage concerns the recent staunch defence by the Home Affairs Ministry of a high-ranking police officer, who stepped down after his partner filed a police report accusing him of domestic abuse.

Quite ironically, this disgraced officer who occupied the position of assistant commissioner responsible for coordinating traffic, was accused by his partner of driving under the influence of alcohol while she was a passenger.

There could be no doubt that the Public Service Commission has a heavy burden of responsibility to carry in this case, that has brought the police force into disrepute.

In 2012, the court of criminal appeal had confirmed a guilty verdict by the Magistrates’ Court against the officer concerned, who at the time was an inspector, for committing a criminal offence that he was duty-bound to prevent. He was found guilty of harassing his direct superior officer back in November 2008.

On the basis of the court’s verdict, the PSC imposed a ban on the convicted officer from seeking further promotion.

However, no sooner had Muscat become Prime Minister that the members of the PSC in office were replaced by new members, who on their part found no problem to remove the imposed ban and open the way up the police ranks for the convicted officer, overlooking the court verdict altogether.

The commission later on also approved the officer’s interview results for promotion to superintendent, where he placed among the three top candidates, and his subsequent interview result for promotion to assistant commissioner following Labour’s re-election last June.

The natural question that arises is whether in so doing the PSC has abided by its constitutional obligation of guiding itself solely in the best interests of the public service and of the nation generally.

One year ago, in a warrant of prohibitory injunction to halt a call for applications for a post in the police force, lawyers Ian Spiteri Bailey and Victoria Cuschieri accused the PSC of violating the right to a fair hearing of one of the applicants, and further stated that the commission was acting in a manner that was anything but “equitable, just, impartial, competent and transparent”.

The Constitution places the PSC in a privileged position by virtue of the immunity that it bestows upon it from the institution of legal proceedings before any court over the validity in which it performs any of the functions vested in it by or under the Constitution.

It is therefore virtually impossible for one to obtain a legal remedy against a violation of rights by the commission in relation to appointments, promotions and discipline.

The PSC is one of a number of institutions responsible for democracy in the country that does not appear to be functioning well. It has been used by the government in defending the indefensible, as in the case of the disgraced police officer whom the Home Affairs Ministry has claimed to be a “hard-working officer who worked his way up through the ranks”.

Denis Tanti is a former assistant director (industrial and employment relations) in the Ministry for Health.