Prime Minister Joseph Muscat yesterday stopped short on giving any meaningful comment on the recent letter written by the Commission for the Administration of Justice to the Speaker of the House.

The Commission, which is headed by President George Abela, said that the decision it had taken in the impeachment motion filed in 2012 against Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco still applied to the impeachment motion presented last week by Dr Muscat. In comments to the media yesterday, The PM said that he had ‘taken note’of the letter, but that is neither here nor there, it does not mean much at all.

The letter – signed by the President - follows in the wake of a ruling by the Speaker on a 2012 motion presented by Prime Minister at the time, Lawrence Gonzi. The speaker ruled that it was not valid because it was a new session of parliament, and that Dr Gonzi was no longer a member of the House.

In view of that, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat filed a new motion. Many commentators, and the opposition, felt that the move would mean a lot of repetition and would give Judge Lino Farrugia Sacco time to retire ‘gracefully’ this August. Given that the motion will take a long time to debate, and that it will also have to be done in stages due to various other laws being debated, this could very well be the case.

The Commission said that while the Judge, who is President of the Malta Olympic Committee was not involved in any irregularities related to illicit ticket sales for the games, there was a case to answer for misbehaviour – at prima facie. The Commission said that in staying on at the helm of the Committee, the Judge had attracted disrespect for the judiciary, even though he had already been asked to step down by the said Commission.

On his part, answering calls from the opposition, the speaker said the matter will now be discussed at the House Business Committee.

So it begs the question, is this impeachment motion ever going to be voted on? The President’s term comes to an end in April. Will that again be used as an excuse to prolong matters? Will the new President rule differently to President Abela?

There are so many questions and so few answers. Even if the motion does come to a vote, it wil all probably be futile anyway, because the House needs a two thirds majority vote when it come to impeachment.

Even so, we believe that the opposition is correct in calling for an urgent debate on the matter, seeing as the Commission has confirmed its original findings. Parliament has a duty to heed the calls of the President and debate the motion. Sooner, rather than later.