Cheryl

Micallef-Borg

Both sides of the House are in agreement on the bill amending the Constitution, discussed in Parliament on Wednesday, although the opposition asked for clarifications. The modifications look to changing the retirement age for magistrates and the Attorney General from 60 to 65 years, as well as entrenching the role of the Ombudsman within the Constitution itself, meaning that the said clauses would need a two-thirds majority in Parliament to be passed.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, explaining the reason for which the magistrates’ retirement age was being revised, said that an anomaly already existed whereby magistrates were forced to quit at the age of 60 years, but would not get a pension until they are 61 years old. This incongruity was further emphasised by the recently-introduced pensions reform, which would mean that persons in said posts would upon retirement need to get back to the working world for another five years, until they can get their pension.

Labour’s main spokesperson for justice Anglu Farrugia felt that there was more reason in amending the retirement age due to the fact that no difference should be made between judges and magistrates. He said the opposition supported the amendment because it meant the country could continue receiving the services of experienced people for a longer time.

Parliamentary Secretary for the Justice and Home Affairs Ministry Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, though agreeing with the PM, reiterated this point, by evidencing how the magistrates’ role and jurisdiction has expanded widely, and that therefore it is justified that they are allowed to hold on to the post until they are 65 years old.

As for the establishment of the Ombudsman as a Constitutional entity, both the PM and the Parliamentary Secretary assured that it was a means of security for democracy in society, as well as a tool of protection for the general populace, in that administrative justice was further secured. Dr Mifsud Bonnici felt it was a further affirmation of another bill being discussed in its third reading, regarding the Commission for the Administration of Justice.

Dr Farrugia praised the office of the Ombudsman, it having made immense strides in a sector otherwise unknown to Malta before 1995. Although he felt that ensconcing role of the Ombudsman in the Constitution was a step in the right direction, he said that it was important that recommendations made by the Ombudsman are implemented.

Dr Gonzi informed the House of a suggested amendment proposed by the current Ombudsman, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, wherein he exposed the inclusion of a “right to good administrative justice” – a right that if accepted will likely be included in Chapter II of the Constitution dealing with rights that are not judicially enforceable; an item expected to be discussed during the Bill’s Committee Stage.

The debate is set to continue on Monday.