It has been a tumultuous start for George Vella’s presidency. He has been in office for less than one-third of his five-year term, but he has already had to deal with unprecedented situations that have directly or indirectly forced his intervention.
On two occasions, he felt compelled to address the nation in the wake of happenings that had rocked this country of ours.
The first time was last December, when the arrest of Yorgen Fenech in connection with the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia was followed by the resignation of Joseph Muscat after his office was linked with the crime. On that occasion, Vella appealed for calm and responsibility for the country “to gradually return to normality”.
But that “normality” – if we had returned to it, that is – was once again disturbed with the Coronavirus pandemic. In March, Vella felt duty-bound to intervene again and, in another address to the nation, he wanted to make his presence felt at a time when many people were in panic-mode as the Covid-19 numbers began to rise.
Now, in the 19th month of his 60-month term in office as Head of State, Vella has been asked to give direction on a constitutional issue that was created because of the situation that has developed within the Nationalist Party. As we all know, leader Adrian Delia lost a confidence vote in the parliamentary group, with 19 of the 30 members declaring that they want a new Opposition Leader. Delia is fighting back, saying he has the backing of the paid-up members who elected him, and has refused to resign. The matter was taken to the President.
In a nutshell, Vella’s decision was that he cannot depose Delia from the post because he is still the leader of the largest group on the Opposition benches, and this in spite of having lost the confidence of the majority of the MPs who form part of that group.
This decision has of course opened up a more heated debate, both within the Nationalist Party as the two opposing factions are seeking to defend their own corner, possibly leading to more friction and acrimony; and also among constitutional law experts, particularly those who are not in agreement with the way the President interpreted that part of our Constitution which deals with the appointment of the Opposition Leader.
What is clear, in all this, is that the Constitution is not specific on what should be the way forward when something like what is happening in the PN comes to the fore. Our forefathers did not anticipate that something like this could take place, and the way the Constitution is written leaves too much room for interpretation, rather than give a well-defined solution to the impasse. It is possibly not the only flaw in these set of rules that formulate the basis of our democracy. There may be others which are still to be tested.
The country is in the process of reforming its Constitution, which was initiated by President Emeritus Marie Louis Coleiro Preca. In August last year, long before the upheavals we referred to in the opening part of the editorial, President Vella himself launched a public consultation exercise with the aim of having a wider input to bring about a more “holistic” reform.
The restructuring of our Constitution is still being discussed, and there is as yet no indication as to when this planning stage will be completed. What happened this week is the perfect example that should lead our experts to look at every word, comma and full-stop before finalising their work. The Constitution should be clear enough to deal with situations such as these, and not be vague so as to further exacerbate confusing situations.