Presidential theatrics and arm-twisting

(photo: presenting to President George Vella proposals for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention : 5 November 2019)

The role of the President in the governance of this Republic, on paper, is just an issue of formality. In practice, however, it can be much more than that.

Undoubtedly Myriam Spiteri Debono will be a different President from her predecessors. Spiteri Debono has a distinct advantage over all of her predecessors: she has no political baggage because she has not held any executive political office to date. Only Sir Anthony Mamo, the first President, had the same advantage!

In her inaugural speech as President, Myriam Spiteri Debono made many an important political point. Fundamentally she emphasized that she will not seek to influence the political debate (a difficult pledge which, however, she did not strictly follow herself). Although she did not name him, this was a clear dig at her predecessor, who, in addition to lobbying the executive intensively in favour of his contrasting political views, unashamedly interfered in the public debate on proposals relative to the IVF legislative changes as well as on Bill 28 which sought to clarify the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code.

His Excellency George Vella would have been taken to task in any self-respecting Parliament. A motion for his removal, because of his behavior, would have been submitted for Parliament’s consideration.  Almost two years ago, given the President’s behaviour in office, I had written in these columns that there are “valid reasons to consider the impeachment of Dr. George Vella from his Presidential duties.” (TMIS: The Presidential rubberstamp: 31 July 2022)

Any person who allows his personal views to conflict with his or her Constitutional duties is, in my view, not fit for office.

Parliament, unfortunately, was not irked by George Vella’s arm-twisting of the executive. It was not bothered, as it thanked Vella for his services! Not one of the Members of Parliament stood up to remind one and all that when the holder of the office of the President interferes in the political debate, he/she is performing a grave disservice to the Republic.

One only hopes that there is no repetition of this interference in parliament’s work.

Parliament needs to reinforce the office of the President. In particular, for example, the Constitution needs some clarity as to how the President can defend the Constitution when he/she does not have the appropriate legal tools available. 

Let me clarify: It is essential to consider in some depth the role of the President of the Republic. Specifically, we should consider whether the President should continue to be just a rubberstamp or whether he or she should have limited review powers over Parliament’s legislative function.

ADPD- The Green Party, in submissions to the still pending Constitutional Convention, focused on this specific matter, among other issues. In the document submitted to the Convention, my party proposed that the President should be able to send legislation back to Parliament for its reconsideration, if, in his/her view such legislation runs counter to the provisions of the Constitution.

The President, on assuming office, declares that he/she will do all it takes to defend the Constitution. He/she is not however equipped with any (constitutional) tools with which to carry out this responsibility.

The Green proposal presented more than four years ago for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention identifies an essential tool with which His Excellency the President can act responsibly within the parameters of the law. We further proposed that should Parliament refuse to budge, the President should refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a final decision. 

This is how the Presidency should function. Much better than when it was subject to the George Vella theatrics, lobbying, and arm-twisting of the executive.

published in Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 April 2024

The President of the Republic: a flicker of hope

The term of office of current President of the Republic George Vella will expire in the first days of April. His successor, the new President, will, for the first time require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives in order to be elected. This, in practice, means that both Government and Opposition must be in agreement for such an appointment to be approved.

Talks between government and opposition are known to have commenced. They are confidential in nature and as such little is known as to how they have proceeded to date. All that is known is that the Opposition Parliamentary group has drawn a significant red line: it will not support any candidate for the Presidency of the Republic if such candidate was a member of the Cabinet of Ministers led by Joseph Muscat and censored by the public inquiry into the circumstances leading to the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

The red line drawn by the Opposition is significant. It is not known how government ranks have reacted to it, as, so far, no public statement has been made on the manner in which the talks between the Labour led government and the PN Opposition are progressing. 

The veil of confidentiality is reasonable, but at some point, it must and will inevitably be lifted in order to enable the public debate on the Presidency to proceed.

At the time of writing Prime Minister Robert Abela is being quoted as emphasizing that he is “hopeful” that an agreement will be arrived at, even at this late hour. It is being stated that ongoing talks are constructive, this giving rise to a possibly positive outcome by the early April deadline. The first indication of the name of a possible agreed nominee is also available at the time of writing.

The two-thirds hurdle which must be overcome in order to elect a President of the Republic, once every five years, has a specific aim: that of ensuring that the selected person has as wide an acceptance as possible. He or she must be able to bridge the political divide. This must be done on a continuous basis.

There have been a countless number of instances in the past when the political parties in Parliament have succeeded in overcoming partisan squabbling and reached agreement on many a sensitive matter. Including the appointment of a Head of State. Then it was good politics to do so. Now it is also a must!

The art of compromise is good politics which, unfortunately, is not sufficiently mastered by many in the political world. It does not mean giving up any of your views, values or beliefs. It rather signifies that you also see the good in what others do and factor it in what you do or say. It is a point that is often sadly missed in this polarized society which we call home!

I still fail to understand why, for example, the Opposition in Parliament failed to accept former Chief Justice Joseph Azzopardi as Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. I had then stated that the Opposition had the right to block the proposed appointment, but it also had the duty to give reasonable explanations for doing so. It failed to give reasonable explanations, because none, in my view, existed. Playing party politics with our institutions is not on.

The rest is now history, except, that, in my opinion, Joseph Azzopardi has proven himself to be a good choice as Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. Both PN and Labour, unfortunately, acted irrationally in this matter. The PN was intransigent while Labour over-reacted.

It is appropriate that both Government and Opposition learn lessons from their past mistakes. It is in the interest of the country that they do this the soonest possible.

The fact that talks are proceeding constructively, maybe, is an indicator that, possibly, there is still some flickering hope for this country. We can only wait and hold our breath: possibly for not too long!

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 24 March 2024

The abortion debate: just the beginning

The approval of Bill 28 is not the end of the abortion debate. It is just the beginning. Maybe, the end of the beginning! The original proposals of Bill 28 were promising, even if they were no big deal. As originally proposed, Bill 28 was a reasonable starting point to an abortion debate which has been stifled for years on end.

It is neither normal nor acceptable for the Head of State to take part in such a controversial political debate in whatever form he opts to participate.

“Everyone knows my position”, President Vella said, when queried by the press last December. His active lobbying of holders of political office against the introduction of any form of abortion in the Maltese Islands was substantial. To add insult to injury he also went public on his intention to resign office and ignite a political crisis, if Parliament approved an abortion bill. In so doing he was giving full and open support to the conservative elements within the Labour Party and beyond, as a result bringing Robert Abela and Chris Fearne on their political knees and forcing them to change the content of Bill 28.

The Labour Party has buckled under the intense lobbying to which it was subjected. As a result, Labour ended up adopting the conservative political position of the Opposition. It has thus once more illustrated that, in such matters, when push comes to shove, Parliament is led by a unified PLPN. George Orwell’s Animal Farm description is apt: they looked from pig to man and from man to pig again, and could not tell which was which!

As PN MP Claudette Buttigieg emphasised in the Parliamentary Committee for the Consideration of Bills, last Monday, the PN Opposition was consistently conservative throughout the debate. Labour, on the other hand, unfortunately, ditched a draft which was a reasonable start for a serious debate and at the end adopted the conservative PN position.

Where do we go from here? The conservative forces, represented by PLPN have presented a united front in Parliament through the unanimous approval of the amended Bill 28. There are however rumblings that the fundamentalist right is considering the possibility of collecting signatures to call an abrogative referendum as the abortion amendments to the Criminal Code, in their view, go too far!

Notwithstanding what the fundamentalists do, the abrogative referendum procedure, is a unique opportunity, to take the conservative PLPN establishment to task. It is also an opportunity to contest the artificial consensus leading to the approval of Bill 28 as well as an appropriate instrument to denounce the interference in the democratic political process by George Vella, President of the Republic.

On Monday, in their different ways, in Parliament, Professor Isabel Stabile, Integra Foundation leader Maria Pisani and ADPD Chairperson Sandra Gauci, exposed clearly that in view of the fact that Bill 28 as amended is a huge step backwards, it is worse than the status quo, as Rosianne Cutajar quipped after the parliamentary vote. The changes made will not save lives. It will only protect medical practioners, as ably explained by Professor Isabel Stabile.

The way forward is to scrap the approved amendments to the Criminal Code and to alternatively legislate in favour of decriminalisation of abortion. Any woman who opts for an abortion needs empathy and not persecution from the state. A limited legal access to abortion is essential, not only when the pregnancy is a potential threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman. It is also necessary to legislate in favour of abortion in cases of rape and incest as well as in those cases where a non-viable pregnancy arises. These issues have to date been avoided in the public debate. They must be addressed the soonest.

We need to clearly identify this as the moderate way forward. Far away from the emotional appeals of the fundamentalist lobby. Also, considerably distant from the extreme position of those who insist on total individual liberty without any limits.

The 2011 divorce referendum entrenched ethical pluralism in Malta’s political agenda. This was an irreversible step which affirmed that different ethical views not only exist: they need the protection of the state.

The PLPN approved abortion amendments entrench a 19^th century-Malta in our statute books. They need to be ditched and replaced with decent legislation fit for the 21^st century. This is the only reasonable way forward.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 2 July 2023

Inħarsu l-ambjent, bil-Kostituzzjoni

Fi żmien għaxar xhur, tkun intemmet il-Presidenza ta’ George Vella. L-entużjażmu tiegħu għall-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali, s’issa, ma wassal għall-ebda riżultat konkret magħruf. Bla dubju, l-Covid-19 ma kienx ta’ għajnuna.

Id-dibattitu dwar il-ħarsien ambjentali permezz tal-kostituzzjoni hu tajjeb. Dan jista’ jwassal biex inaqqas jew saħansitra jelimina d-diskrezzjoni tal-Gvern dwar meta jaġixxi f’dan il-qasam. Ifisser ukoll l-għarfien li m’għandniex fiduċja li l-eżekuttiv jista’ jeżerċità diskrezzjoni b’mod raġjonevoli, u dan għax sal-lum, ftit li xejn aġixxa b’mod raġjonevoli fir-responsabbiltajiet ambjentali tiegħu.

Il-Kostituzzjoni tagħna, fit-tieni kapitlu tagħha fiha diversi dikjarazzjonijiet li permezz tagħhom huma stabiliti diversi miri bażiċi tal-Gvern fosthom dawk ambjentali. Il-miri ambjentali kienu msaħħa riċentement permezz ta’ emenda kostituzzjonali ppreżentata minn José Herrera, dakinnhar Ministru għall-Ambjent. Huma fundamentali għat-tmexxija tal-pajjiż, iżda ma tistax tmur il-Qorti, jekk il-Gvern jonqos milli jimplimenthom. Fil-prattika dan ifisser li dak li tgħid il-Kostituzzjoni dwar l-ambjent ma jiswa’ xejn.  Hu meħtieġ li l-iktar kmieni possibli, s-sitwazzjoni tinbidel kif repetutament emfasizza ADPD kemm fid-diversi manifesti elettorali kif ukoll fis-sottomissjonijiet li ippreżentajna quddiem il-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali li tidher li hi ġġammjata.

Il-PN issa qed jipproponi li l-ambjent għandu jkun meqjus bħala dritt uman fil-kostituzzjoni. Ma nafx x’iridu jgħidu biha din. Naħseb li qed jużaw il-kliem żbaljat għax l-ambjent ma jistax ikun dritt uman. Li probabbilment iridu jgħidu hu li l-aċċess għal ambjent protett għandu jkun garantit bħala dritt uman.  Din hi mira diffiċli għax tfisser, fost oħrajn, li l-PN ikunlu meħtieġ li jibdel il-posizzjoni tiegħu fuq diversi materji biex ikun kredibbli: fuq quddiem nett nistenna li jibdel il-posizzjoni tiegħu dwar il-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni tal-2006, anke għall-konsistenza. Ikollna nistennew biex naraw kif ser jiżviluppaw l-argument.

Il-ħarsien ambjentali fil-Kostituzzjoni fil-fehma tiegħi ghandu jfisser li l-bniedem jirrispetta l-eko-sistema, li tagħha, aħna niffurmaw parti, flimkien mal-pjanti u l-annimali l-oħra.  Għandu jfisser ukoll il-ħarsien tal-bijodiversita, kemm tal-fawna kif ukoll tal-flora, fil-kuntest naturali tagħhom. Ifisser ukoll il-ħarsien tal-ilma tal-pjan li m’għandux jitqies bħala propjetà privata. Ifisser ukoll l-għarfien ikbar tal-valur nazzjonali tal-wirt storiku.

Sfortunatament, il-Kostituzzjoni, filwaqt li tagħraf b’mod dettaljat il-ħtieġa tal-ħarsien tal-propjetà privata tonqos milli tirrikonoxxi s-sinifikat u l-valur intrinsiku tal-eko-sistema, li niffurmaw parti minnha u li hi tagħna lkoll.

Referenza għall-ambjent naturali fil-Kostituzzjoni għandha tkun waħda ekoċentrika u mhux antropoċentrika. Dan ifisser li meta tikkonsidra l-ambjent naturali l-Kostituzzjoni jeħtieġ li tqis il-ħarsien u d-drittijiet tan-natura u l-wirt naturali u mhux drittijiet umani. Huwa essenzjali li nibdew naħsbu bis-serjetà dwar id-drittijiet tan-natura u kif dawn jintrabtu mal-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri li ukoll għandhom dritt li jkollhom arja nadifa biex jieħdu n-nifs, ilma mhux imniġġes u l-possibilità li jgawdu n-natura fl-aspetti kollha tagħha.  Dan hu l-wirt komuni tagħna lkoll u għandna nieħdu ħsiebu.

Ir-referenzi ambjentali fil-Kostituzzjoni tagħna għandhom jassiguraw li wara snin ta’ prietki dwar is-sostenibilità, nistgħu, forsi, nittraduċu dak li nemmnu fih f’għodda legali biex il-Gvernijiet ikunu obbligati li jimplimentaw politika sostenibbli.

Kif inhuma l-affarijiet, illum, il-Kostituzzjoni tipprovdi linji gwida meta titħadded dwar materji ambjentali. Dan, iżda, irriżulta li mhux biżżejjed għax l-ebda wieħed mill-Gvernijiet Maltin mill-1964 sal-lum ma mexa ma’ din il-gwida kostituzzjonali.

Jekk għandna nitgħallmu xi ħaġa mit-taħwd li aħna mdawwri bih hi li t-triq il-quddiem hi li jkollna l-miri ambjentali miktubin b’mod ċar u li dawn jorbtu jdejn il-Gvernijiet.

Li nħaddru l-kostituzzjoni għandu jkun l-ewwel pass fit-triq tal-kisba tal-ordni ambjentali. Fl-aħħar, imma, għandhom ikunu l-Qrati li għandhom ikollhom is-setgħa li jiġbdu widnejn il-Gvern meta dan jonqos milli jagħmel dmiru.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 4 ta’ Ġunju 2023

Greening the Constitution

Within another ten months, the presidency of George Vella will have come to and end. His enthusiasm for a Constitutional Convention, so far, did not lead to any known tangible results. Covid-19, definitely did not help.

The debate of entrenching environmental protection in the Constitution, thereby reducing or completely removing governmental discretion as to when it can act, is healthy. It signifies recognition that we cannot trust the executive with exercising reasonable discretion, as it has not to date been reasonable in the way it has acted on environmental stewardship.

Let us start at the very beginning. Our Constitution, in its second chapter, contains declaratory provisions which establish a number of basic objectives of government, amongst which the environmental objectives to be attained. The environmental objectives, which were amplified in a recent amendment to the Constitution, moved by then Environment Minister José Herrera, are, in terms of the Constitution itself, fundamental to the governance of the country. They cannot, however, be enforced in a Court of Law. This means that in practice these environmental provisions of the Constitution are for all intents and purposes a dead letter. They need to be enforceable, the soonest, as my party has repeatedly emphasised both in its electoral manifesto in various elections as well as in its submissions to the now stalled Constitutional Convention.

It is now being suggested by the PN that the environment should be a human right entrenched in the Constitution. What does this mean? I think that what has been stated so far is a wrong choice of words. The environment cannot be and is not a human right. What they most probably mean is that access to a protected environment should be a guaranteed human right.  This is a tall order and it signifies that the PN has to reverse a substantial number of its policies in order to be credible: first on the list it needs to reverse its commitment to the 2006 rationalisation plan for consistency. We will wait and see what they really have in mind.

Environmental protection in the Constitution should, in my view, mean ensuring that humans respect the eco-system of which, together with plants and other animals we all form part. It should mean protection of biodiversity, both fauna and flora as well as their habitats. It should also signify the protection of the aquifer as this is not and should not be considered as private property. It also signifies a recognition of the national value of historical heritage.

Unfortunately, the Constitution emphasises in the minutest of details the need to protect private property but then it ignores the significance and the intrinsic value of the eco-system of which we form part and which belongs to all of us.

Reference to the natural environment in the Constitution should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric. This means that when considering the environment, the Constitution should deal with the protection of the rights of nature and not human rights. It is about time that we should start thinking about the rights of nature and link this with the rights of future generations who have a right to breathe unpolluted air and drink unpolluted water and enjoy nature in all its aspects. This is our common heritage and we should handle it with care.

Environmental references in our Constitution should ensure that after years of preaching sustainability we can, maybe, translate our beliefs into legal tools in order that governments are bound to implement sustainable policies.

As things stand the Constitution provides guiding principles when dealing with environmental issues. This has proven to be insufficient as none of the Maltese governments since 1964 has acted in accordance with this constitutional guidance.

If we are to learn anything from the current mess it is that the way forward is to spell out clear environmental objectives which tie the hands of governments.

Greening the Constitution could be a first step in bring our house in order. At the end of the day, however, the Courts must be in a position to be able to instruct government to carry out its duty when it has failed to do so.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 4 June 2023

It-timbru tal-President

Waqt li inti qiegħed taqra dan l-artiklu, l-Eċċellenza Tiegħu il-President  qiegħed  fir-Renju Unit wara li attenda għall-inawgurazzjoni tal-logħob tal-Commonwealth. Huwa telaq minn Malta nhar l-Erbgħa fil-għodu.

Hekk kif l-ajruplan tal-Air Malta bl-Eċċellenza tiegħu fi triqtu lejn Birmingham inqata’ mill-art, l-Aġent President il-Professor Frank Bezzina kien fl-uffiċċju tal-President qiegħed jiffirma l-liġi bl-emendi tal-IVF. L-istess liġi li Dr Vella kien ilu ġranet sħaħ jirrifjuta li jiffirma.

L-istorja ma tieqafx hawn. Meta l-President, George Vella, irrifjuta li jiffirma huwa mar lil hinn mill-awtorità li tagħtih il-liġi u dan billi hu ma għandu l-ebda diskrezzjoni dwar kif jista’ jaġixxi: għandu jagħti l-kunsens tiegħu bla dewmien. Hekk jistabilixxi l-artiklu 72 tal-Kostituzzjoni tar-Repubblika ta’ Malta.

Anke l-Eċċellenza Tiegħu hu soġġett għal-liġi, f’dan il-każ il-Kostituzzjoni. Li jirrifjuta li jimxi ma dak li tgħid il-liġi, f’dan il-każ il-Kostituzzjoni, hu ksur serjissimu tar-responsabbiltajiet Kostituzzjonali Tiegħu. Fil-fehma tal-partit tiegħi dan hu suffiċjenti biex ikun ikkunsidrat li Dr George Vella jitneħħa mill-kariga ta’ President tar-Repubblika. L-Eċċellenza Tiegħu messu jkun ta’ eżempju dwar kif inbaxxu rasna għas-saltna tad-dritt. Kif nippretendu li ħaddiehor jaqdi dmiru jekk il-Kap tal-iStat jaġixxi b’dan il-mod u jagħti l-agħar eżempju possibli?

Għad baqa’ ċans biex il-Parlament jikkunsidra t-tneħħija ta’ Dr George Vella mill-ħatra u dan minħabba l-imġieba tiegħu li hi kemm inaċċettabbli kif ukoll illegali.

Imma l-Parlament għandu bżonn li jmur lil hinn minn ċensura qawwija ta’ Dr George Vella.  Għandu jikkunsidra fil-fond ir-rwol tal-President tar-Republika. Speċifikament għandu jkun ikkunsidrat li l-President ma għandux ikun sempliċi timbru imma li possibilment ikollu poter li jibgħat lura għand il-Parlament dawk il-liġijiet li fil-fehma tiegħu ma jkunux kompatibbli mal-kostituzzjoni.

Fis-sottomissjonijiet li l-partit li jiena immexxi kien għamel lill-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali konna iffukajna fuq din il-materja, fost affarijiet oħra.  Fid-dokument li ippreżentajna lill-konvenzjoni, fis-sezzjoni intitolata : Il-President tar-Repubblika: ħatra u responsabbiltajiet, il-partit kien ippropona li l-President għandu jkollu id-dritt li jibgħat lura quddiem il-Parlament liġi biex din tkun ikkunsidrata mill-ġdid kemm-il darba fil-fehma tiegħu din il-liġi ma tkunx kompatibbli ma’ dak li tipprovdi l-Kostituzzjoni.  

Il-President, meta jidħol fil-ħatra, jiddikjara li hu/hi ser jiddefendi l-Kostituzzjoni. Imma minkejja li jassumi fuqu dan l-obbligu m’għandux għodda kostituzzjonali biex dan ikun jista’ jagħmlu.  Il-proposta tagħna ilha li ppreżentajniha kważi tlett snin. Biha ipproponejna l-għodda kostituzzjonali meħtieġa  li permezz tagħha l-Eċċellenza Tiegħunil-President ikun jista’ jaġixxi  b’mod responsabbli u bis-saħħa tal-liġi, f’ċirkustanzi serji fejn dan ikun meħtieġ. Konna pproponejna ukoll li jekk il-Parlament ma jibdilx jew jimmodifika il-posizzjoni tiegħu għas-sodisfazzjon tal-President dan ikollu l-possibilità li jibgħat il-liġi in kwistjoni quddiem il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali għal deċiżjoni finali. Hekk isiru l-affarijiet bis-serjetà.

B’dan il-mod l-uffiċċju tal-President ma jibqax sempliċi timbru kostrett li jgħid iva bilfors, inkella jopera barra mill-parametri tal-liġi. Dak li għamel il-President f’dawn il-ġranet hu gravi u setgħet inħolqot kriżi kostituzzjonali. Mhux l-ewwel darba li konna fix-xifer lijinqala’ incident simili. Xi snin ilu President ieħor kien indika (privatament) li ma kienx komdu li jiffirma il-liġi dwar l-Unjoni Ċivili (Att IX tal-2014).  Biex jikkalma s-sitwazzjoni u jevita kriżi Kostituzzjonali l-Gvern ta’ dakinnhar kien ippospona ftit il-vot finali fil-parliament sakemm laħaq inħatar President ġdid. Il-liġi dwar l-Unjoni Ċivili, fil-fatt kienet ġiet iffirmata mill-President nhar is-17 t’April 2014, tlettax-il jum wara li bdiet il-Presidenza ta’ Marie Louise Coleiro-Preca.

Jagħmel tajjeb il-Parliament jekk jikkunsidra din il-materja issa u jikkunsidraha sewwa. Hu essenzjali li l-President tar-Repubblika jkollu l-għodda kostituzzjonali biex ikun jista’ jaħdem b’mod responsabbli u skond il-liġi. Iktar ma dan isir malajr, aħjar.

ippubblikat fuq : Illum: 31 ta’ Lulju 2022

The Presidential rubberstamp

While you are reading through this article, His Excellency President George Vella is in the United Kingdom – after attending for the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games. He left these islands on Wednesday morning.

As soon as the Air Malta plane taking His Excellency to Birmingham was in the air, the Acting President Professor Frank Bezzina was at the President’s desk signing into law the IVF amendments. Those same amendments which Dr Vella refused to sign in the days before.

This is not the end of the story. By refusing to give his assent the President, George Vella, acted beyond his authority as in terms of law he had no discretion on the matter: he had to signify his assent without delay, as established by article 72 of the Constitution.

Even His Excellency is subject to the law, in this case the Constitution. His refusal to follow what is prescribed by the law is a serious breach of his Constitutional responsibilities, and, in the view of my party this gives rise to valid reasons to consider the impeachment of Dr George Vella from his Presidential duties. His Excellency should show us the way as to what it means to be subject to the rule of law. How do we expect others to carry out their duties if the Head of State acts in this way: the worst possible example?

There is still time for Parliament to consider impeachment proceedings against Dr George Vella and remove him from office in view of his unacceptable and illegal behaviour.

Parliament needs, however, to go beyond clearly censuring Dr George Vella. It is essential to consider in some depth the role of the President of the Republic. Specifically, it should consider whether the President should be just a rubberstamp or else whether he or she should have limited powers of review over Parliament’s legislative authority.

In submissions which the party that I lead presented to the Constitutional Convention we focused on this specific matter, among other issues. In a section of the document submitted to the Convention, entitled, The President of the Republic: appointment and responsibilities, my party proposed that the President should have the right to send legislation back to Parliament for its reconsideration, if, in his view such legislation runs counter to the provisions of the Constitution.

The President, on assuming office, declares that he/she will do all it takes to defend the Constitution. He/she is not however equipped with any (constitutional) tools with which to carry out his responsibilities. The Green proposal presented almost three years ago for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention identifies an essential tool with which His Excellency the President can act responsibly within the parameters of the law. We further proposed that should Parliament refuse to budge the President should refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a final decision.  This is the manner in which the Presidency should function. Much better than the present-day theatrics.

In this manner the President’s office would not be a mere rubberstamp, constrained to assent or else act outside the parameters of the law.  The President’s actions in the past days conveyed the worst possible message. It almost happened some years ago when another President had (privately) indicated that he would not assent to legislation relative to Civil Unions (Act IX of 2014). In order to avert a Constitutional crisis government had then slightly delayed the final vote in parliament, timing it with the swearing in of a new President. The Civil Unions Act was in fact signed on the 17 April 2014, just thirteen days into the Presidency of Marie Louise Coleiro-Preca.

Parliament would do well to consider the issue further. It is essential that the President of the Republic is adequately equipped with the necessary constitutional tools in order that he can carry out his duties in a responsible manner and within the parameters of the law. The sooner this is done, the better.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 31 July 2022

L-uġiegħ ta’ ras tal-President tar-Repubblika

Il-President George Vella ma iffirmax il-liġi li taġġorna l-liġi tal-IVF għax għandu riżervi kbar dwarha.

Dan hu normali u mhiex xi ħaġa ġdida.

Il-Kostituzzjoni kif inhi illum, imma, ma tagħtihx il-fakolta li joqgħod jaħsibha għax tobbligah li jiffirma l-liġi bla dewmien. Hu għalhekk li l-bieraħ kont kritiku tal-President u tkellimt dwar proposta li għandu jitneħħa mill-kariga.

Il-partit li jiena immexxi diġa ippubblika soluzzjoni possibli għal din il-kriżi, li bla dubju, issa li nħoloq l-ewwel każ ser tirrepeti ruħha f’ċirkustanzi oħra li għad iridu jinqalgħu.

Fid-dokument li ippreżentajna lill-konvenzjoni kostituzzjonali konna għamilna proposta ċara li biex iħares u jiddefendi l-Kostituzzjoni kif stabilit fil-ġurament tal-ħatra, il-President għandu jkollu is-setgħa li, kemm-il darba jkun hemm dubju serju dwar il-kostituzzjonalità ta’ xi liġi approvata mill-Parlament, jibgħat lura quddiem l-istess Parlament il-liġi in kwistjoni biex din tkun ikkunsidrata mill-ġdid.

Din il-proposta ilna li għamilniha u għadha valida sal-lum.

Min irid jaqra id-dettalji dwarha jagħfas hawn u jmur fis-sezzjoni 12 intitolata: Il-President tar-Repubblika: ħatra u responsabbiltajiet. (paġna 15 sa 18).

The Impeachment of Dr George Vella

Parliament has approved controversial legislation relative to IVF on the 6 July 2022.

The approved legislation was sent to the Office of the President of the Republic in order that he concludes the legislative process by assenting to the approved bill.

Article 72 of the Constitution provides that “When a bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall without delay signify that he assents.” The bill has been on the President’s desk for many days and he has not given his Presidential assent. He should signify that he assents without delay. There are no ifs and buts.

This lack of Presidential assent “without delay” is in breach of the Constitutional responsibilities of the President of the Republic.

In statements made to the press over the past days it has been made amply clear that Dr George Vella is reluctant to assent to the approved IVF Bill. This is clearly unacceptable and runs counter to his Constitutional responsibilities as President of the Republic.

A Green MP would by now have presented a motion for the impeachment of Dr George Vella and his removal from the office of President of the Republic for failing to shoulder his Constitutional responsibilities “without delay”.

There are no Green MPs. Discriminatory electoral legislation is currently being contested in our law courts, an initiative of ADPD-The Green Party.

Will anyone of the 79 Members of Parliament take the initiative?

From Dubai to Singapore

Last week, the President of the Republic, laying out the programme for the new government in what is known as the speech from the throne, emphasised that the environment is a core value for this government. Reading through the speech prepared by government, his Excellency was clear by dwelling on a number of different topics of considerable environmental importance.

However, Dr Vella was unfortunately not advised as to how and when the government intends to address its continuous contradictions in its drive to shift its focus from the infrastructure to the environment.

The elastic environmental politics presented by this government ranges from more flyovers to achieving carbon neutrality, simultaneously being dependent on two interconnectors tapping the Sicilian energy market.

Previous governments led by the Labour party had sought to transform Malta into another Dubai, that is a land of high rises and extensive land reclamation . The attempt at Dubai-ification embarked on by the Muscat led government will apparently now be transformed into a Singaporization as emphasised by infrastructure Minister Aaron Farrugia. This is the implementation of the policy of continuity which his Excellency was apparently not sufficiently advised about.

The current crop will do their best to outshine their predecessors. Since there is not much more land to ruin, they have therefore turned their gaze towards the sea which they will be ruined in due course.

Preliminary studies carried out in the past had identified the areas in Maltese waters where land reclamation could be considered, subject to more in-depth studies. The coastal areas identified and studied are those along the  Magħtab/Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq coastline and the Xgħajra/Marsaskala coastline. These are the coastal zones which have to be watched and protected.

The basic question to ask before embarking on planning any land reclamation projects is: what do we need land reclamation for? In the past land was reclaimed to construct the Freeport or to protect the coast at Msida, Gżira and elsewhere.

If any new pressing need is identified one should carefully consider them.

The Netherlands used land reclamation successfully to adequately manage its low-lying land. Hong Kong made use of land reclamation to create high value land required for its airport on the Chek Lak Kok island. Through land reclamation Singapore expanded its container port, an essential cornerstone in its economy.

The way to go about tackling land reclamation is through serious public consultation. Labour in government has, so far, only consulted developers on land reclamation. It has, in the recent past, only consulted those who were seeking new ways to make a quick buck! These are the fourth-floor guys who are only interested in making hay while the sun shines.

If government is serious about land reclamation it should immediately publish a list of its proposed projects. This should be accompanied by a draft national land-reclamation strategy for public consultation. At this point consultation should not be with the speculation lobby: it has already been extensively consulted. Consultation at this stage should primarily be with environmental NGOs and the coastal communities, in particular those directly impacted.

Having said the above I do not think that land reclamation is or should be a priority. Rather, the priority should be the restructuring of the construction industry: specifically cutting it down to size and putting it to good use.

The country would be economically, environmentally and socially much better off if the construction industry is assisted in its much-needed restructuring. It would undoubtedly need to shed labour which can be absorbed by other sectors of the economy. Retraining would be required to ease the entry of the shed labour force into other economic areas.

After years of haphazard and abusive land-use planning, land reclamation is the last thing we need!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 15 May 2022