Interior Minister Tonio Borg has called on the opposition to clarify its position on the proposal to have the post of Ombudsman protected by a parliamentary two-thirds majority vote through its entrenchment in the Constitution.

Yesterday evening, the Ministry said that the Constituional Amendment has been drafted and sent to the opposition for considertation.

Speaking during a press conference in the morning, Dr Borg said that the government felt the time was due to have the post of Ombudsman entrenched in the Constitution so as to have it protected by a two-thirds vote in parliament. He explained that at present, the government of the day only needed a one-vote majority to take a decision to remove the post of Ombudsman because it was simple common law. However, the present system does dictate that a two-thirds majority vote is needed for the appointment or removal of a particular person as Ombudsman.

He said that the post of Ombudsman was created in 1995 and had given results. “It worked with the local councils, and now, after 11 years, we feel it is time to take this next step. You might not always agree with the decisions taken by the Ombudsman, but the set-up has been successful,” he said.

Dr Borg said that he had sent a letter to opposition spokesman for justice and internal affairs back in January of this year. “I think that seven months is ample time for the opposition to give us their feedback, especially seeing that they seem to agree with us as various opposition MPs have already said,” pointed out Dr Borg.

He also said that ombudsmen have already expressed keenness for the post to be entrenched in the Constitution, as has the present one Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino. On Tuesday, during a meeting he had with Opposition Leader Alfred Sant, Judge Said Pullicino said an agreement between the two sides of the House of Representatives to entrench the institution of the Ombudsman into the Constitution as “a mature political step which should be taken, and taken now.”

Dr Borg said that if the MLP did not come forward with its reaction to the government’s proposals, there were three options. “We could either put the bill forward for a Constitutional vote and see what happens, or we could just forget about it, or we could put it for a simple majority vote, but I am sure that in the coming weeks, we will see developments.”

He did, however, have a finger wag at Labour, saying that he felt that the public should know that the government was trying to push this positive step forward and had been waiting on the opposition for consultation for the past seven months.

Dr Borg said that in the same proposed amendment, the government was pushing for retirement age of magistrates and the attorney general to be bumped up to 65, like judges. He said that the two amendments were in no way linked, but it would be another positive step. He said that magistrates were in favour of the proposal.