I cannot but comment positively on this year’s speech delivered by the Speaker of the House on the occasion of the Sette Giugno; an annual event to commemorate the ‘bread’ riots that took place in Valletta on 7th June 1919.
Dr. Angelo Farrugia began by referring to both Enrico Mizzi and Manuel Dimech. Clearly in referring to these two political personalities, he was being courteous and diplomatic with regard to the present political division of the House between Nationalists and Labourites. Nationalists revere Enrico Mizzi, one of their past leaders. Labour admires Manuel Dimech whom it considers as its proto-Maltese Socialist. In truth, Dimech was not a Socialist, but some of his followers ended up joining the Labour movement. Dimech was a Mazzinian and admirer of Enrico’s father, Fortunato Mizzi.
Farrugia gave a generous historical review of Enrico Mizzi’s political aspirations, when he stated that Mizzi had already opined for Independence back in 1919. Indeed, Mizzi had submitted a resolution, drafted in the spirit of the Versailles Treaty, by which he wanted Malta to be granted the rights to self-determination. In those days this meant that Malta should be allowed to join Italy, in the same way that the Versailles Treaty had united Istria and Dalmatia to Italy.
The intelligence and street wisdom of Filippo Sciberras proved instrumental in saving the day. Sciberras, as correctly stated by the Speaker, piloted a more factual resolution based on the cardinal principle that Malta should be granted both a parliament and self-government. This was the corner stone which led to the eventual building of our modern state.
Amongt the builders of this modern Maltese state, the Speaker went onto mention another figure. He brought up the name of Monsignor Giuseppe De Piro. Perhaps, this may seem odd considering the currentclimate where cosmopolitanism and diversity are meaning everythingand anything except religion. Yet, the reason why De Piro was mentioned was not because of his involvement in the riots - De Piro worked hard to calm down the population and thanks to his actions, he prevented a blood bath - nor was he mentioned for his work in assisting families of the victims at a time when no pensions existed. Farrugia’s interest in De Piro was to bring to the fore this politician’s indisputable great rectitude.
De Piro’s high moral standing is inspiring the Speaker in his efforts to establish a parlimentary code that strengthens integrity among all MPs.
This should start by curtailing any abuse that emerges from the MPs’privilege of speech. Here, Farrugia was not just speaking as a politician or Speaker of the House, but also as a lawyer and former police officer insisting that no member of parliament should abuse his or her parliamentary privilege to the detriment of the rights of a citizen.
I must confess that he is absolutely right on this point. He views this as the first step towards achieving parliamentary decorum. According to Farrugia, this would mean that citizens would have the right to reply when their names are bandied in Parliament. Yet, Farrugia seems to imply more than just a simple reply. The word he used was ‘redress’,leaving it quite open. It is up to us citizens to voice what type of redress we would like in such situations. I personally think that such ‘redress’should include pecuniary compensation deductible from an MP’s salary, when his or her attacks on individuals in Parliament prove to be untrue.
Clearly, Farrugia knows what he wants to achieve. He wants to change the Standing Orders. Yet, this is not the sole issue that Parliament needs to address.
Farrugia spoke about another topic close to his heart. He is continuing the good work of his predecessors to obtain administrative autonomy for our parliament. He wants parliament to be completely independent, not only of the executive but also of the judiciary. At the moment, a Constitutional Court case can stop proceedings that are in front of the House Committees.
Perhaps, it is within this sphere that the Speaker made the most controversial appeal. At the moment, persons facing Civil or Criminal Proceedings can refuse to testify before the Public Accounts Committee. At least, there is a Constitutional Court case on this matter related to what is colloquially known as the Oil Procurement Scandal. Individuals being investigated by the police have instituted a Constitutional Court case wherein they are claiming that their right to a fair hearing was being breached because they were being asked to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to testify on this same subject, while being prosecuted on the same issue by the Police.
The Speaker wants to back their rights and therefore he does not only want to extend the right of these individuals, which they already enjoy, to refuse to answer any questions by the Committee which couldincriminate them, but he is also suggesting that the testimony given before a parliamentary committee cannot be considered as evidence before any other tribunal or a court of justice.
PAC is intended to keep government under scrutiny but one may argue that these committees are run by politicians, who very often are also advocates and are there not to establish justice but to score political kudos. For this reason, these committees can never substitute a police investigation or a court of law.
Frankly, unless the nature of the Public Accounts Committee is clearly defined, I am not fully convinced that the Public Accounts Committee should continue with its investigations once a case is being investigated by the police. Until now, this committee has acted as some sort of criminal investigating agency. This is in breach of one of the cardinal rules that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. However according to Article 4, Protocol 7 of the ECHR ‘… a case can be reopened… if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings which could affect the outcome of the case.’
It is very dangerous for democracy to have two separate and autonomous bodies investigating the same crime. This happened in the past, when Malta had more than one court of justice. It created confusion and led to abuse with one institution attempting to affirm its superiority on the other. It not only infringed on an individual’s rights, but even worse; as separate independent bodies, these institutions could reach different conclusions regarding the same ‘crime’. If this were to happen, this may confound public opinion. It is very difficult, as independent bodies, to issue their judgement concurrently. This could undoubtedly lead to the judgement reached by one body influencing the other body still investigating. This is by far the most dangerous scenario to occur in a democratic system.
One can defend this by stating that Parliament is extending the parliamentary privilege enjoyed by MPs to those who appear in front of these committees. I think that this privilege should be restricted and not extended since this may lead to abuse. If this principle is introduced, one can give one version to the House Committee and a different version in a Court of Law. Once the evidence given in front of the House Committee is different to that given in court, the person still cannot be accused of perjury.
To be fair, the Speaker is not developing these ideas on his own but one needs also to study the different historical contexts in which these systems have cropped up. For this reason, he is proposing to the Maltese Parliament to follow the House of Commons in this regard. It is up to us to debate and see whether this can be applicable to us or not. In fact, the Speaker appears to be genuinely worried of legal loopholes which are leading to situations where individuals refuse to testify before PAC on the premise that there are on-going legal proceedings before a Court of Law.
PAC can never be turned into a court of justice, as has unfortunately often happened and seek to establish the innocence or guilt of the person it is investigating. This prerogative should remain exclusively with our Courts of Law. Through its investigations, what PAC should start doing is to establish procedures and guidelines for good governance. This would entail a code on the manner questions are posed by members of this committee which should be different in approach to those asked in a Court of Law.
The way forward is for us - the citizens - to openly debate and discuss these proposals for a more participant democracy in order for ourParliament to adopt a pro-active approach to better fulfil its functions and truly be of service to the nation.