The Opposition and the Civil Society Network “are simply shooting themselves in the foot” in calling for the Attorney General and Police Commissioner to be appointed by a two-thirds majority because what really counts is the method of their removal from office, according to the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Professor Kevin Aquilina.
Calls for the removal of AG Peter Grech and Police Commissioner Lawrence Cutajar had started in the wake of the Panama Papers and FIAU revelations but intensified over the past few weeks after the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. CSN and the Opposition want them to be dismissed and insists that their replacements should be appointed by a two-thirds parliamentary majority.
But Professor Aquilina does not believe that this is not the way how future appointments to the two posts should be made.
Currently, the AG is appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Miniser, while the police chief is appointed directly by the PM. The two-thirds majority system, Aquilina writes, would simply ensure that the candidates are agreed to by both the PM and the Opposition Leader.
“Whilst the current appointment system has its own defects and needs to be scrapped in relation to both appointments, the two-thirds system does not go far enough as it still retains the power of appointment in the political class.”
“Once the Commissioner of Police is being accused by the Opposition and by the Civil Society Network that he is not investigating the Panama papers scandal and FIAU reports, then the solution does not lie in appointing the Commissioner of Police with a two-third majority vote whilst leaving the procedure for his removal as it currently stands: he is removed by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission with no involvement of the Leader of the Opposition or of the House. Yet for the removal procedure to commence and before the Public Service Commission may decide to recommend the removal of the Commissioner of Police, the civil service (who is under the direct control of the Prime Minister) has to issue the charge for the institution of disciplinary proceedings. I doubt how much this would be done without the Prime Minister’s blessing or when the Prime Minister has declared himself against such removal.”
With the proposed system, if an AG later becomes the Prime Minister’s main critic, the PM cannot remove him from office because he requires a two-thirds majority.
Similarly, were the AG to start justifying government financial impropriety, the Opposition would have a problem there because government will continue to defend the Auditor General and he would never end up being removed from office.
Aquilina also refers to the recommendations that had been made by the Bonello Commission, which include a proposal for the setting up of a Public Prosecutor and the removal of prosecuting powers from the AG.
The proposal was for the appointment to be made by an independent Judicial Services Appointments Authority, whilst discipline and removal was also to be made by another independent Judicial Services Discipline Authority.
Aquilina hints that the system to appoint an remove AG’s and Police Commissioners could be similar.
Full article