A couple of weeks ago, parliament was debating a rather controversial bill amending various laws in the plenary session.

Some amendments were highly commendable and had the full support of the Opposition.

How can one possibly vote against amendments meant to strengthen the deterrent against crimes motivated by racial hatred as well as changes that were long overdue, because of petty partisan squabbles, to the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance by virtue of which the act of sharing drugs would no longer be considered as trafficking, thus eliminating the injustice of handing down mandatory incarceration sentences.

The controversy centered around three amendments which the Opposition as well as the Chamber of Advocates strongly oppose, namely the idea to remove the power of magistrates to conduct inquests (a move meant to control the magistrate’s manoeuvrability in responding to a citizen’s claim to investigate alleged criminal misconduct); the denial of the automatic right to bail in certain scheduled offences, and the removal of the obligation of corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice in crimes perpetrated by more than one offender.

Since the government opted to carry the controversial amendments in the same bill as the laudable ones, the debate in the plenary stage was unfortunately rather aggressive. The three controversial amendments took centre stage and hijacked discussion on the validity of all the other amendments particularly those dealing with the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance where government MPs lost a glorious opportunity to lambaste the Opposition for the position it used to take, rightly or wrongly, in the not-so-distant past. Strategically it was a mistake. Indeed MPs from the minister’s own side dedicated their contributions to express their concern on the controversial amendments moved by the government rather than on the Opposition’s change of mood on the drugs issue.

The bill is now under the clinical eyes of parliament’s legal eagles at committee stage where after three sittings there have been some intriguing changes.

The government has already backtracked on one amendment without batting an eyelid. Instead of denying a person accused of a scheduled offence the automatic right to bail for three months, the government moved an amendment to its own amendment by introducing a system which will empower the attorney general (AG) to enter an appeal within a short peremptory time-limit on a grant of bail in the case of scheduled offences.

In the event that the AG files an appeal, the accused remains in a state of detention but this is balanced by the fact that the appeal is put on a fast track and dispensed with expeditiously.

This was certainly a great improvement on the draconian amendment originally proposed and which would have met serious problems before our Constitutional Court. In the circumstances, the Opposition withdrew its opposition and, although it still considers the obtaining position at law as fair and just, it still voted with the government for the final amendment in a gesture of magnanimity.

There should also be some changes to the amendment which purports to dilute much of the powers of magistrates in conducting inquiries and this thanks to the insistence of the Opposition.

Indeed, both sides have come closer to a convergent solution that would satisfy on the one hand the government’s wish to involve the superior courts in magisterial inquiries, and, on the other, the Opposition’s concern that the real reason behind the idea to control what is to date purely magistrates’ business was the political embarrassment the government suffered in two major inquiries conducted by two different magistrates wherein a former police commissioner and the Foundation of Tomorrow’s Schools were clearly embroiled. It is likely that an amendment will be moved that will involve a right of appeal.

However, both sides have reserved their right to retain their respective original political positions until they see the final draft.

On the amendment dealing with corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice we are still light years away from a possible consensus.

The Opposition has signalled its intention to budge from its “definitely no” stand provided changes are introduced that would protect the alleged principal from the dangerous evidence of an accomplice who might be fishing for a discount in punishment by framing his companion.

The Opposition believes that the government wanted a conviction in the Meinrad Calleja case relating to the attempted murder of the former prime minister’s personal assistant, a crime there were great doubts he was involved in on account of Zeppi l-Hafi’s dubious depositions. It is also the Opposition’s belief that this was the reason why the government proposed this amendment in the first place.

However, instead of pushing the bill to a vote, the deputy prime minister has magnanimously suspended the vote in the hope that he will come up with fresher ideas by next time we meet again in committee. Being a lawyer, the deputy prime minister is aware of the sensitivity of the amendment he is proposing.

The minister for home affairs criticised the Opposition in parliament and in the most prominent columns of English language newspapers, for trying to thwart his attempts to fight crime.

A high profile writer and lawyer who has an interest in another English language newspaper tacitly suggested there were partisan interests behind my opposition to the bill.

I am proud to have opposed the amendments and frankly, Anglu Farrugia, Jose Herrera and myself feel we have been vindicated.

Dr Gulia is the opposition’s main spokesman on

Home Affairs