The day after Labour lost the general election the MLP leader resigned as MLP leader with immediate effect. This was made known in a press conference held at the CNL. Charles Mangion stepped in as acting leader with all the powers to manage the party on an interim basis that a leader has.

Dr Sant was reported to have stated in front of all the media present that he would stay on as Opposition Leader till a new MLP leader is elected by conference.

Being Opposition Leader was, is and remains a constitutional role and revolves mainly round the conduct of state affairs in Parliament.

Although his media conference comments were reported extensively, at the time nobody questioned this decision.

It is worth keeping in mind that at the time that the statement was made no one was yet aware who the likely contestants for party leadership could be although speculation began gaining ground the moment Labour lost.

It is not my brief to defend the Opposition Leader. I am quite sure that he can do so himself.

What I find strange is the political amnesia that seems to have hooked the whole political class in Malta, media included, about his original statement.

It could be that while some were so excited about a new PN victory while others were still traumatised by yet another Labour defeat, some might have genuinely missed the point altogether.

But there is something rather strange, bizarre and almost sinister that after two whole months people of various ilk chose to question his ad interim temporary role when he had laid his cards on the table since day one.

At the time when Dr Sant originally made his announcement nobody chose to make the fine point – dubious and questionable as it may be – that it was a position he could hold while Parliament was dissolved but which led to an anomaly when the House of Representatives reconvened.

To be fair when contacted, the reply to a local newspaper from the President’s Palace – the guardian of the Constitution – was dry but crystal clear: ‘As far as is known, Dr Alfred Sant is still leader in the House of Representatives of the Opposition party and the appointment of a new Leader of the Opposition does not arise.’

Clearer than that you cannot get!

Dr Sant is reported to have explained that a similar situation had arisen in 1992 when Dr Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici had kept his position as Opposition Leader after the general election, until Dr Sant himself was appointed and took over. The only difference is that in 1992 he had taken the oath before Parliament had convened while this time round the complication is that the Labour Party decided during a joint NEC and parliamentary group meeting to push back the date for the leadership contest, and in the meantime, Parliament reconvened.

Much spin is being made of the fact that an unconstitutional situation could arise if one of the leadership contestants running for leader is chosen, particularly because he had expressed the wish that he would like to spend some time as a party leader before becoming an MP in order to get the party’s house in order.

While three of the leadership contestants have no problem if elected since they are all serving and elected MPs, we also have another contestant – an MEP – who has declared on TV that if elected leader he will take over as Opposition Leader by September at the very latest due to pending European Parliament business that still needs to be cleared, although to be fair, if I read him correctly he did not exclude that he could take up his seat even much earlier. In the case of Dr Abela, by the time of writing he has not yet formally committed himself as to how long he would like to spend as party leader before becoming an MP in order to assume the role of Opposition Leader.

I am no lawyer by profession or legal expert but, without wanting to, one begins to question what is the true motivation behind the constitutional quandary on the Opposition Leader post when the President of the Republic’s Office has been so categorical. I would not imagine that they passed their comments abruptly and off the cuff without consulting the necessary legal brains, particularly at the Attorney General’s Office level.

Things started taking an even more suspicious turn when two ‘fresh points’ were recently made within 24 hours.

On one hand we had an editorial call that it may not be amiss to adjourn parliamentary sittings to after the MLP leadership election, and in the meantime, hold talks to ensure that even then the Constitution is respected and be seen to be respected, while someone else from the Labour camp who is presently openly supporting a particular candidate for the leadership – as he has every right to do – claimed to be confused that a new legislature has started but somehow Dr Sant is still Opposition Leader.

He not only argued that the present acting leader should have been sworn in as Opposition Leader in this legislature, going on to sow even more doubts by binding his concern as to why the President – the guardian of the Constitution – is condoning what he classified as an ‘irregularity’, only to go on to add the gratuitous comment that the PN seem comfortable with Dr Sant continuing as Opposition Leader in this interregnum and that his tenure gives considerable power of incumbency to influence the outcome of Labour’s leadership election – thus concluding that it is power of incumbency without being the rightful incumbent.

He ended up posing the question as to who says that the PN truly wish Labour to elect a new leader who can give them a real run for their money?

That is a question many have ironically indeed been asking for different reasons, particularly when the present Opposition Leader made a statement that would have created political earthquakes had it been delivered in another Western democracy.

Primarily that democracy in Malta was facing a new threat, claiming that not only a clique which was not at the forefront of the political scene had the power to take decisions in their own interest, but he also warned that these people would now even try to take over the Labour Party and colonise it.

This is a burning question that demands to be probed seriously and addressed. Some people have every right to dismiss it lightly.

But others genuinely feel that they might risk doing so at their own peril. Forget all about the visions and policy platforms for the time being but the accusation is so loaded than one cannot simply shelf without first reflecting, appraising dispassionately and digging deeper.

It might be no strange coincidence that even Nationalists in high places who might have never warmed to Alfred Sant’s style of leadership and who have no qualms about seeing him go, are reported to share this concern about what they defined in confidence as representing a clear and present danger.

E-mail: [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the MLP Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs & IT.