I refer to the article entitled “Dilly-dallying and dangerous shortcuts: the Minister’s constitutional amendment” by the Hon. Clyde Puli carried by The Malta Independent on Sunday of 22nd January. The article is a copy and paste of a similar one that was published in The Times of Malta on 20th January, so the Ministry feels obliged to react again to such incorrect statements made by the Hon. Puli.

The right of the Director General to impose administrative sanctions and for the Competition and Consumer Affairs Tribunal to hear appeals from decisions of the Office for Competition were only introduced by the amendments to the Competition Act in 2011 by the previous administration.

Before the introduction of the 2011 amendments, the imposition of a sanction was not an issue within the competence of the Office for Competition, since the sanction to be imposed was to be determined by the Court of Magistrates. Prior to the 2011 amendments, an infringement was considered an offence and only courts having criminal jurisdiction could impose sanctions. Therefore, the possibility of imposing fines has always existed in the Competition Act but until the amendments were introduced in May 2011, no fines had ever been imposed.

It was only in 2013 when the Director General of the Office for Competition – appointed by the Nationalist government – used for the first time its right to impose an administrative fine on an association of undertakings which had allegedly infringed Competition rules, that this provision was challenged in the Maltese Courts.

Therefore, it is ironic that the Opposition has voiced its concern only recently, claiming that the Director General could not impose fines because only a Court could do so. In actual fact, for more than 16 years, since the promulgation of the Competition Act in 1994 until the 2011 amendments, no person has ever been charged with an infringement of the Competition Act before the Court of Magistrates, even though there was a legal setup which provided for the imposition of criminal sanctions for an offence.

Having enacted the law in question itself when in government, the Opposition is expected to show a better understanding of the issues involved.

In fact, it is indeed rich to hear Mr Puli, a member of the previous Nationalist administration, arguing to ensure that we safeguard the Courts when it was the Nationalist administration of 2011 that had removed the sanctioning of the Law Courts in Competition laws. He is strongly arguing for going back to how the law stood before 2011. Where was he in 2011? Above all this, because the government is trying to sort out this mess which is a result of the 2011 amendments, the Opposition has the gall to pose as the guardian of constitutional rights.

It is clear, now more than ever, that the Opposition has lost all its credibility on this issue and in its fervour to blame the present government, it is inadvertently criticising its own past stand and action in the area of Competition policy and law.

The government will not be lost for words. The Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties will be proceeding with the necessary amendments to rectify the shortcomings left by the Nationalist administration.

 

Reuben Sciberras

Communications Coordinator

Ministry for Social Dialogue

Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties