Some years ago, I fell foul of Parliament but fortunately emerged laughing. It may not always end like that.

I was editor of The Malta Independent daily and I had published a letter from John Zammit heavily criticizing MP Michael Bonnici (PN) who had made an impassioned anti-abortion speech in Parliament.

Mr Bonnici was not amused and raised a Breach of Privilege claim in our regard. This was when I found out that Parliament has privileges and that they are nothing like what you and I have.

The Speaker referred the case to the Privileges Committee and we were called to appear before it.

John was defended by Emy Bezzina and, whether it was by pre-planned design or by accident, we ended up having some three or four sessions with this committee. Every time someone on the committee asked us a question, Dr Bezzina replied in long soliloquies, each repeating more or less the same statements.

In the end, having got nowhere, the government members on the committee sat on the hapless Mr Bonnici and forced him to close the whole thing, even without us having to apologise or make some sounds in this direction, as I believe we should have done to this day.

We laughed all the way down to the street.

Others were not so fortunate. Godfrey Grima was hauled in front of the entire Parliament when he ran foul of Dom Mintoff. And then there was the Charles Demicoli case. He was the editor of a satirical paper and two MPs, one still an MP, felt aggrieved by something he had written. He was hauled in front of Parliament and later in front of the Criminal Court and found guilty. However, he later won redress at the European Court of Human Rights.

This is how Judge Giovanni Bonello, who defended him both in Malta and in Strasbourg, described the case: “Charles Demicoli was the editor of a satirical political newspaper that had criticised some Labour MPs. The MPs felt offended and instituted a case of breach of privilege in Parliament.

“Breach of privilege exists only in the UK, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta. It is a very strange procedure by which Parliament converts itself into a criminal court of law, acting as victim, prosecutor, judge and jury at the same time and if found guilty the defendant can be sentenced for up to two months in jail.

“Demicoli questioned whether it was right for him to be judged and sentenced by the victims of his own satire. He argued that Parliament was not an independent and impartial tribunal. We lost the case in Malta but when we took the case to Strasbourg we won hands down.

“The case had great international repercussions because although breach of privilege remains on the statute books of the UK, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta there has never been a criminal prosecution since.”

Since then, some changes have been made but the basic situation still is that a parliamentary majority can decide on just about anything.

Of course, Parliament can bring down a government but, in the present case, Franco Debono does not seem to want that. Instead, we are seeing a death by a thousand slashes.

Anytime that Dr Debono focuses, for whatever reason, on a person, Labour promptly and helpfully puts forward a motion so that the new parliamentary majority, which is composed of the Opposition’s MPs and Dr Debono, can have its way.

The first case was that regarding Austin Gatt at the time of great national anger at the Arriva system. But perhaps things had not been sufficiently honed then.

Now we have the issue regarding Richard Cachia Caruana and Carm Mifsud Bonnici.

I have no brief or interest in defending them or their actions. They can very well defend themselves.

I too have had my run-ins with them. Mr Cachia Caruana saddled me with libel proceedings for an admittedly mistaken article in a magazine I did not see before it was published for the simple reason that it had already been sent to the printers when I stepped into the editor’s shoes for a short spell.

And Dr Mifsud Bonnici’s mother, then the First Lady, had rounded on me during a reception in The Palace dining room and accused me in front of everybody that I had done ‘great harm’ to her family.

I admit that what is in Wikileaks regarding Malta and the PfP needs explanations from the government and from Mr Cachia Caruana. And I also admit that Dr Mifsud Bonnici’s tenure of his ministry, like that of any other minister, should always be scrutinized by Parliament.

What I cannot accept is why Dr Debono is targeting some people and not others and what the real reasons for his attacks are. There are huge personal issues involved, that is clear.

And I cannot accept that the Opposition is aiding and abetting Dr Debono in his personal crusade against the people he targets and joining him in what could unravel in the coming days.

This is not Parliament scrutinizing the government and people in government: it is the creation of a parliamentary majority with a pre-designed outcome. Or else it looks like one this side of the coming parliamentary votes. This is a kangaroo court, not an example of parliamentary procedure or the searching for truth and justice. There are no checks and balances, as there should be in a democracy but merely a question of a majority and a minority.

When you are hauled up in front of Parliament on a breach of privilege, you are not in court: you just don’t have rights. If the majority says you are guilty, so you are.

Things are slightly different when there is a motion of no confidence in a minister, which is a perfectly normal parliamentary procedure. But when the Opposition joins the maverick on the government benches against the people he points at, there is more than a whiff of personal animosity and paying of debts.

When the Leader of the Opposition states “It is Parliament that decides what the national interest is,” he is very right, but then which Parliament is he talking about – the Parliament that has not, so far, voted down the government or the Parliament (made up of the Opposition and one MP) that can bring down a minister or a Permanent Representative?

I lay the blame for this present state of affairs squarely at the door of the Prime Minister who is holding on to power when his parliamentary majority is obviously wobbling, day after day. Do we have to wait until a minister is unseated, or until Dr Debono brings up further victims for the tumbrels?

PS

At the first council of ministers on Thursday afternoon, the French government voted on its first measure, a 30 per cent wage reduction for all ministers and the president, as promised by Hollande in his election campaign. Instead of €21,194 a month before tax, the president and prime minister will each receive €14,836. Ministerial monthly salaries drop from €13,423 to €9,396.

As a symbolic gesture in times of austerity, it was a masterstroke. Better still, it was in stark contrast to the actions of Hollande’s predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose first move on taking office was to increase his salary by about 170 per cent.

Predictably, this was given prominence in Malta with many mentions of the €500 a week increase the ministers gave themselves.

I asked what the salaries of ministers in Malta are and was told: “The ministerial basic salary is €3254.39 every four weeks.

“Gross Salary, when adding allowances but reducing the honoraria repayment is of €3085.80.

“When reducing SSC and Income tax… net salary is €2345.89 (using married rates).”