It has been three years since the last general election and, for the second time, the courts have decided that the PN is right and should be given two more seats in parliament. For me, the case has a personal dimension as well as a general democratic one.
On a personal level, this news thrills me because it proves, once again, that the mistake made by the Electoral Commission put me personally at a disadvantage when the votes were counted.
The official story, at variance with the truth, is that I was not directly elected but only earned my seat in parliament thanks to a special post-electoral adjustment. However, the courts have affirmed that I WAS elected on my own steam. It proves that I did not need any mathematical calculation to give me a seat in parliament. In simple terms, I am in parliament because I was elected to be there, full stop.
But this case in the Constitutional Court is actually not about me. It is about the basic human right to vote and have that vote respected.
When, three years ago, the voters of the eighth and thirteenth districts decided who they wanted to represent them in parliament, they decided that they wanted three PN MPs and two PL MPs on both districts. The mistakes on both districts reversed that result. It gave the opposite result that the majority of voters wanted.
The irony of it all is that, throughout the proceedings in court, the Electoral Commission admitted that this was a clear mistake. But the rules on how to correct such mistakes have made it impossible for such mistakes to be corrected.
It is therefore particularly fitting that the very detailed sentence given by Judge Lorraine Schembri Orland yesterday morning, not only covers the legalities of the consequences of these mistakes but goes further.
It actually states that the Electoral Commission should make sure that such mistakes do not occur again. To ensure this, the court has instructed the Electoral Commission to change the current rules, if need be even to amend the law, and make sure that such mistakes can be in fact corrected.
As for the appeal presented by the government, yes, there is always a right to appeal. But the question remains: is it the right thing to do?
My feeling, and this is strictly my personal feeling, is that Dr Toni Abela did not want to appeal. He does not agree with the court’s sentence but in his comment to the press he congratulated the new MPs. Why would Toni Abela congratulate the new MPs when, only a short while later, his government declared clearly that it would appeal the court’s sentence?
I am sure that Toni Abela knows that just because you have the right to appeal it does not mean that it is always be the right thing to do.
Of spies and lies
In Wednesday’s parliamentary debate it was particularly striking how Labour MPs reacted when Marlene Farrugia revealed that, in all Ministries, Castille has a spy reporting back to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff.
Minister George Vella seemed particularly irritated by this and spoke his mind. Others seemed just as angry, particularly Helena Dalli, Chris Cardona and Carmelo Abela.
The following day, the Prime Minister laughed off the allegations by saying he had no 007 agents. Of course the allegations had nothing to do with glamorous spies. They were about grubby informers and sneaks, spies of the kind used by police states not MI6.
In any case, the Prime Minister’s reaction raises a question. If it is a laughing matter, why did the Ministers get so upset?
My reading of the facts is that the Ministers were angry because Marlene Farrugia was exposing a secret they are not too happy with. Had this not been true, had it been a laughing matter, wouldn’t they have laughed it off also?