Last Tuesday, the Speaker of the House of Representatives again appealed for the government and opposition to come together to find a way forward on a proposal he had made for the first time in 2015 – to grant a citizen’s right of reply if they feel aggrieved by something that was said about them in Parliament.

In speeches that Anglu Farrugia has delivered in the past eight years when Parliament commemorates the 7 Giugno 1919 riots – deemed to have sparked the process that eventually led to the setting up of the Maltese Parliament in 1921 – he has made it a point to insist that citizens should be granted the tools to defend themselves.

MPs have what is known as parliamentary privilege, which means that they can say anything in the House without fear of retribution. What MPs say in Parliament is privileged and they cannot be taken to court. But there are times when MPs abuse this privilege.

Speaker Anglu Farrugia raised the issue for the first time in 2015, and repeated the message on other occasions. But the two sides of the House have not come to terms on the way forward. The matter has not even been discussed.

In July 2022, soon after Farrugia had again mentioned the idea, the opposition had written to the government to propose changes to parliamentary procedures. But, nearly a year later, the government is still to officially reply.

The below are excerpts of the Speaker’s 7 Giugno speeches that deal with the concept of having a citizen’s right of reply, a suggestion that, so far, has been ignored.

2015

“Much remains to be done to continue improving the level of transparency and accountability of each and every one of us towards the people we represent. For instance, I believe that the time has come to address issues which arise when citizens feel aggrieved by statements made about them in Parliament, and to establish a mechanism which grants citizens a right of redress.

“This obviously needs to be done without impinging on Parliamentary rights and privileges, since these are intended to allow Members of Parliament to speak without fear. On the other hand we must ensure that this privilege is not abused in the country’s highest institution, and in this regard I believe that the time has arrived to start looking at models which address this issue. Furthermore, within the framework of the ongoing exercise to review the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, we need to ensure that we introduce regulations which bestow greater dignity to this Parliament.”

2017

“One further amendment I would like to see being moved to the Standing Orders of the House, concerns the citizen’s right of reply.

After quoting what he had said in 2015, the Speaker added: “I believe that by granting this right, we would be bringing the citizen closer to Parliament because we would be tangibly providing him with the means to voice his concerns in the highest Institution. At the same time, we would be showing him that the Members of Parliament are ready to be more accountable because this step in itself should serve as a means of control in respect of those abusing their parliamentary privileges.”

2018

“During last year’s speech I remarked upon the need for Parliament to serve as a place where one can debate freely in the national interest… as I had done on previous occasions, that parliamentary privilege should not be abused. In this regard I had also said that the time had come to start looking at models that address this issue and that in the exercise that was underway to revise the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, we had to introduce measures that give greater dignity to Parliament, including in the way Members address the House.

After quoting what he had said in 2015 and 2017, the Speaker had said… “I am saying this to emphasise that everyone must be responsible for their actions and it cannot be that year after year we return to this commemoration … and remain without an established procedure which ensures that anyone guilty of abuse is held responsible for his actions.

“The Member of Parliament is a representative of the people and no matter who he is, and no matter which side of the House he sits on, he should always bear the responsibility to speak honestly and in the best interest of the country. No Member should abuse this right. Therefore, I believe that it is high time that the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives be revised in order to provide a remedy for those citizens who feel aggrieved by the abuse of parliamentary privilege.”

2019

“As I have mentioned in previous years, I feel that the time has come to address the matter of the parliamentary privilege that each Member enjoys when speaking in the country’s highest institution. Here I am specifically referring to the fact that a citizen who feels wronged by an address delivered in Parliament has no right of reply. I believe that the way forward is to continue the exercise that was embarked upon by both sides of the House – Government and Opposition – to introduce regulations intended to safeguard the decorum we normally uphold in our parliamentary debates, that is in the way in which Members address the House.

After the Speaker (again) had referred to what he had said in 2015, he added “I am still of the opinion that this would be an important development in parliamentary accountability with regard to the behaviour of Members in the House. Following last year’s Sette Giugno speech, I was approached by a number of citizens who felt wronged by what was said by certain Members in Parliament in their regard. In the absence of mechanisms that provide for such situations, I could offer no remedy to these citizens. Until such time that Parliament adopts such mechanism, I believe that the time has come for me to consider tabling in the House all the complaints I receive from citizens in writing when they feel wronged by what has been said about them in the House.

“As we commemorate the centenary of the Sette Giugno riots, I am of the opinion that without any further delay, we should move ahead with the introduction of some kind of mechanism so that whoever abuses their parliamentary privilege is made answerable for their actions.  Members of Parliament represent the electorate, and whoever they may be, and whichever side of the House they hail from, they should always be accountable for what they say; they must always be honest and seek the country’s best interests. Therefore, I reiterate my call for a revision of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives in order to introduce such a remedy, which I feel all citizens should be entitled to.”

2021

“A need I have spoken about several times is for Parliament to have a procedure to give a right to common citizens for redress if they believe that parliamentary privilege was abused. There are several models that could serve as a basis for such a remedy to be introduced in Malta,” the Speaker said.

Where it exists, the remedy known as the citizen’s right of reply offers the Speaker the opportunity to investigate any instances in which parliamentary privilege could have been abused, or else a parliamentary committee is set up with the power to investigate such complaints.

This is an aspect in which we need to move forward. “I believe it is an insult to democracy” that an MP abuses of such a privilege, and when a common citizen has no remedy to defend himself or herself against the falsities said about them in Parliament. Citizens should be given the right to reply.

2022

“I now wish to refer to an issue raised on several other occasions. I am referring to the citizen's right of reply, a mechanism whereby citizens would have a right to reply to what has been stated in Parliament in their regard. I believe that the time has come to implement this parliamentary procedure. I reiterate that while it is essential that parliamentary privilege be maintained so that no Member is afraid of speaking the truth, it is equally important that no Member abuses such privilege and ends up harming persons, be they physical or juridical, who cannot reply and defend themselves in Parliament.

“To date, persons who feel that statements made in their regard by Members of Parliament while addressing the House or a Committee cannot take any remedial action, even if such statements cause suffering to these persons who could also be subject to proceedings in the courts. There are several models, particularly in the Commonwealth, that one might consider when adopting such a parliamentary procedure. An interesting example is the one adopted by the New Zealand Parliament, where it is the Speaker who considers and decides whether what has been said in Parliament by a Member under parliamentary privilege, is sufficiently serious to be capable of adversely affecting a citizen, in which case, without going into the merit of the remarks that gave rise to the complaint, allows for the clarification made by such a citizen to be included in the records of the House.

“In other Commonwealth models, the Speaker refers the complaints he receives to a parliamentary committee for its consideration and decision. The fact that this concept is not so common outside the Commonwealth should not deter us from introducing this parliamentary procedure which would provide a remedy to those citizens who may justifiably feel that the parliamentary privilege has been abused in their regard. This initiative would be similar to the one implemented a few years ago with the agreement of both sides of the House, when we introduced measures whereby citizens could petition Parliament directly without having to approach a Member of Parliament. Today, citizens know that that if their petition meets the established criteria, it will be considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions. Therefore, just as Parliament has taken steps forward in this regard, I believe that it is time to start looking at how to address this delicate but important issue of the citizen's right of reply.”

2023

“I would now like to address a matter that I have mentioned in several speeches during my tenure as Speaker of the House. We need to establish a parliamentary procedure that provides citizens with a means of redress when they feel that a Member of Parliament has abused of their parliamentary privilege by making incorrect or false statements about them in Parliament.

“Presently, individuals in such situations have no recourse, even if they suffer adverse consequences as a result of statements made about them in the parliamentary Chamber or the committees. It is essential to recognize that these consequences may adversely affect their interests in ongoing court proceedings in which they are involved. I believe the time has come for us to explore models from various countries, especially those within the Commonwealth, and adopt the most suitable approach for our parliament.”

2024

Will the Speaker be forced to repeat what he has said since 2015?