The latest hot topic in Parliament has been a controversial Bill concerning the period that a person can be held under arrest without charge.

Bill 49 – as it is numbered in Parliament – aims “to provide for the possibility to extend the period of arrest of persons reasonably suspected of having committed serious crimes liable to a maximum punishment exceeding 12 years imprisonment so that the investigators will have more time to obtain and preserve evidence.”

The bill would see the amount of time that a person can be detained for without charge increased from 48 hours to 132 hours – meaning that from two days, police would have five and a half days to charge or release the individual who would have been arrested.

However, members of the legal sphere who spoke to or contribute to The Malta Independent on Sunday have expressed grave concern over the proposal.

The Chamber of Advocates, which represents the legal profession in Malta, told The Malta Independent on Sunday that it is deeply concerned with the proposed amendment for a number of reasons.

“The 48-hour period is a fundamental and cardinal rule and any consideration to it being extended should only be made in very exceptional circumstances,” the chamber said.

The chamber added that the criterion of crimes liable to a punishment exceeding twelve years imprisonment “is superficial to say the least”, that there is no deterrent against an abusive request for an arrest period extension, and that the criteria established for the magistrate’s consideration is “insufficient and superficial and will lead to rubber-stamping.”

Former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello also told this newspaper that the bill raises “serious concerns” and said that it also proposes an arrest period which goes against the maximum period of police detention that is established in European Court of Human Rights case law.

He observed that “the case law of the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly asserted that the maximum period of police detention cannot exceed 96 hours.”

In an opinion piece penned in this edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday, former Faculty of Laws Dean Kevin Aquilina also had scathing criticism for the bill, going as far as saying that Prime Minister Robert Abela’s legacy will be “the death knell” of human rights.

“This amendment, if adopted by a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives […] will relegate the 48-hour rule to the dustbin of constitutional and human rights history and open the door for the creation of a police state,” Aquilina wrote.

All in all, it is clear that this Bill should go back to the drawing board.  It is not this newspaper saying it, but legal experts who are.

The Bill as stands will open a Pandora’s box of legal concerns which will no doubt see Malta taken to and challenged at the highest European courts.

The government can argue all it likes that the country is being “held hostage” by a supposedly “divided” Opposition because the PN realised that the law goes against fundamental human rights and decided to change its stance on it – but the fact is that the PN’s decision to change stance is an important one.

This is because it is clear that not enough thought has been put into the drafting of this Bill.

The very fact that, as judge Bonello said, case law of the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly asserted that the maximum period of police detention cannot exceed 96 hours should be enough reason to say that a 128 hour detention period is not good.

That factor together with all of the other points mentioned on this Bill are enough to say that this Bill needs to go back to the drawing board.