When I entered the room in the European Parliament last week, I knew that I would be given very little time to put forward my arguments, so I had to be short, concise and to the point as possible.
LIBE Committee had accepted a few days earlier that I attend and be given some minutes of speaking time during a session where the Socialist MEP Ana Gomes would formally present the findings of her group of MEPs (David Casa included) who came to Malta to see for themselves the situation about the rule of law.
I am accustomed to being reviewed by foreign bodies or European entities. In the justice sector we get that all the time, be it GRECO or the European Semester or the World Bank or the Justice Scoreboard or CEPEJ. I actually look forward to them because the eventual final reports gives me the opportunity to underline here in Malta all the work we are doing in the justice sector and rule of law to make Malta a stronger democracy and a better place.
Of course, the reports contain parts which would applaud Malta for introducing this or that reform in the justice sector and others which would provide some criticism and suggestions for improvement. However, by and large, the reports are generally positive because, at the end of the day, we are working hard to implement change and improve the rule of law in Malta. This same week, for instance, Parliament read for the third time the Bill which, on publication, will provide for a grilling mechanism for candidates to the post of Chairpersons of main regulatory authorities and non-career candidates for ambassadorial posts. That will certainly draw praise in the eventual reviews by the leading authorities on the rule of law in Europe and elsewhere. And this is only one example.
***
Therefore, I do have experience on reviews and reports. The report, written by Ana Gomez, David Casa, Sven Giegold and the other MEPs ("the Mission") who came to pass judgment on how our justice system works shows, to say the least, a fundamental lack of understanding on the roles of the various institutions in Malta which it describes, how those institutions perform their duties and their powers under statute. Significant elements of the information the members relied on when drawing up their recommendations are out of date or inaccurate, and criticisms levelled against constitutional structures in Malta, or decisions made by the Maltese government, even though other member states operate similar systems or have made identical decisions. Not to mention the fact that although the Government has brought about a significant amount of reform in the past five years and continues this work with dedication and diligence, this has not been sufficiently set out in the Mission Report.
If you take a look at the people the Mission spoke to – practically the whole pro-Simon Busuttil faction within the Nationalist Party – you immediately realise that while their views of course need to be taken in account, they only present one side of the picture. How can you, for instance, draw up a report about free speech in Malta without speaking to autonomous bodies such as the Institute of Maltese Journalists?
***
The Government is willing to engage in and discuss any matter and any issue relating to the rule of law with any person interested in the subject. That is what I told the select committee of the European Parliament last week. We want to engage in a spirit of sincere co-operation because the picture provided by the Mission is not the correct picture of Malta. I can provide tens of reports by leading institutions which carried out professional fact-finding missions that arrive to completely different conclusions than that reached by the Mission. The Council of Europe's GRECO, for instance, in the one of the most recent reports lauded the Office of the Attorney General as one which enjoys independence and widespread trust.
Of course, we have a reformist agenda and we want to keep changing and implementing reforms. For instance, one of the Bills I will pilot in the coming weeks will draw on the recent experience of Parliament and give administrative autonomy to the Law Courts. Also in the coming months we want to start implementing a number of reforms which have just been approved by Parliament and now it's our turn to push them through on the ground – the new Commercial Court and mediation in Rent Sittings are only two examples.
***
In this context, I found Adrian Delia's tirade last Sunday pretty amusing when, screaming at the top of his voice, he challenged me to debate with him wherever and whenever the rule of law. I immediately accepted his challenge of course. However, after a while, Dr Delia decided to abandon ship and pulled out of the challenge.
In Parliament last Wednesday I challenged Delia myself to come up with proper proposals on how to improve the rule of law in Malta. Back in 2013, when the Bonello Commission was doing its consultations with stakeholders about law reform, the Nationalist Party decided not to propose anything. At the time, they had replied that they did not have anything to propose. I sincerely hope that this time it will be different.
Until now, all we have heard from the Opposition benches are personal attacks against the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police and a proposal to change their method of appointment which – it seems – is not done anywhere else in the world.
Let's see what proposals Dr Delia will come up with. I honestly hope that we can turn this debate into something positive for the country.
Dr Bonnici is Minister for Justice