Parliament has put aside all its planned work to dedicate, so far, five full sessions to debate the reform related to the way magisterial inquiries are initiated and conducted.

The government wants the reform to be rushed through without any public consultation exercise, although there has been a steady reaction against the government's plans coming from several, distinct quarters and individuals.

Constituted bodies, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Malta Employers, the Chamber of Advocates and the Chamber of SMEs, civil society groups such as Repubblika and Graffitti, and legal experts such as former Chief Justices and judges, and law professors have blasted the government's planned reform, saying that it is another nail in the rule of law coffin and a blow to democracy.

The government has ploughed ahead, defending its idea as the Nationalist Party, in Opposition, points out the reform's flaws, saying that when in government, it would reverse the changes which the Labour government, given its parliamentary strength, will push through. Smaller political parties like ADPD-The Green Party and Momentum have also expressed themselves against the reform.

There are various reasons why there is so much resistance.

These are seven of them.

1.      The scope behind the reform

In the past year, two magisterial inquiries came to a close.

The first was related to the deal which had seen the government pass on three public hospitals to be run by the private sector, an agreement which was rescinded by a court of law and confirmed on appeal.

The magisterial inquiry was a separate procedure to the actual court case that had been filed by Adrian Delia.

Even before it was concluded, Prime Minister Robert Abela did not lose any opportunity to attack the magistrate who was conducting the investigation, questioning the timing as the elections for the European Parliament and local councils were approaching. Abela delved into a continuous assault against what he described as the "establishment".

The second inquiry was related to the company known as 17 Black in relation to the power station project.

The hospitals' inquiry led to the arraignment of former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, former minister Konrad Mizzi, then sitting minister Chris Fearne and Central Bank Governor (and former minister) Edward Scicluna, and former chief of staff Keith Schembri.

Schembri and Mizzi are also on the list of people who are accused in court in connection with the 17 Black inquiry.

No doubt, the magisterial inquiries caused political damage to the Labour Party.

Late last year, other requests for magisterial inquiries into Cabinet ministers were filed. Seeing this, Abela decided it was time to try to curb what he described was "abuse" of the system, and within weeks came up with the reform. The speed by which the government acted on this matter is remarkable, given that other reforms it promised years ago have not come to be.

Most notably, such planned but yet-to-be-presented reforms include the government's promise to amend the law so that permits for construction are halted until all appeals are exhausted, and the government's promise to amend the laws to give better protection to the media. With magisterial inquiries, the wheels of the government machine moved at break-neck speed.

It's clear that the government is doing everything in its power to limit access to magisterial inquiries as they were causing so much harm to Labour. The government wants to protect its own and people close to it, rather than improve access to such investigations.

2.      Attack on rule of law

The debate on the magisterial inquiry reform started, in the most ironic of ways, on the same day that a report on corruption by Transparency International gave Malta its lowest score ever. Malta bagged only 46 of the 100 points available, with only Hungary and Bulgaria faring worse among European Union member states.

Ignoring everyone and everything, the government moved on.

The reform will not improve Malta's score. It will make it worse because it reduces the possibility that magisterial inquiries could be initiated.

Magisterial inquiries are one of the last tools available for any citizen to request an investigation, especially when other institutions are not functioning as they should. Limiting the possibility that inquiries are initiated will only serve to make wrongdoers bolder.

3.      Police report

One change that the government is introducing is the need to file a police report. As things stand now, any citizen could go directly to the magistrate to request the start of a magisterial inquiry. This will no longer be possible, as the police will need to be involved.

An argument against this is that citizens resorted to a magistrate because the police were not doing their duty. And what if the complaint involved the police?

4.      Magistrates

What the government is doing is effectively showing lack of confidence in magistrates.

Until now, magistrates had the faculty of deciding whether or not to start an inquiry. They were entrusted with the possibility to filter between frivolous and serious attempts. This power is now being taken away from them.

If, after six months following the submission of the report, the police do not proceed, citizens can then go to the Criminal Court, before a judge, who will decide whether a magisterial inquiry should be initiated.

Again, magistrates are being bypassed.

That, then, magisterial inquiries will be put under the supervision of the Attorney General is another way by which the magistrates are being shown lack of confidence.

5.      Admissible proof

That citizens need to go to the police is already a tough obstacle. That, then, they need to produce what is known as admissible proof - that is evidence that is acceptable before a court - makes it all the more harder.

Citizens do not have the means and the power to investigate, and yet the law as amended will put the onus on them to provide, in their application for a magisterial inquiry, proof that would be acceptable in a court of law.

This "proof" is normally what magisterial inquiries were tasked to find out. Now, this "proof" has to be brought by the citizen filing the complaint.

Magistrates have the tools to find this proof. Common citizens do not.

6.      Costs of inquiry

Another deterrent to be introduced through what the government is doing is that citizens who call for an inquiry could be asked to pay for its costs if the claims they bring forward are deemed to be unfounded, frivolous or vexatious.

It must be remembered that these inquiries cost thousands, sometimes millions, to complete. The imposition of such a penalty could therefore discourage citizens from moving forward with their complaint. The possibility that they could be asked to pay the full costs of the inquiry will most likely stop them from taking the risk.

7.      Limited timeframe

The initial time afforded for magisterial inquiries to be concluded has been pushed up from two to six months, but now the whole process can be extended from six months to two years.

History has told us that complex inquiries - such as the ones about the hospitals and 17 Black mentioned earlier - can take much longer than that, but the limit is now two years and it is only the Attorney General who will have the power to extend the timeframe, if it is deemed fit.

This gives the Attorney General too much power to decide whether magisterial inquiries can proceed or otherwise.