Speaker Anglu Farrugia seems to have turned to standup comedy. After being accused of bias by a frustrated Opposition, he issued a side-splittingly funny statement. "The Speaker notes that he has consistently demonstrated an impartial and fair approach to his duties". He insisted his decisions are "based on well-established parliamentary principles". He went further - "Any criticism should be measured against the fact that his rulings always indicate clearly the legal provisions and /or precedent they are based on".
The man is a walking joke, a pompous bubble of hot air. "The Speaker remains resolute in safeguarding his role as a neutral arbiter with a firm commitment to democratic principles," his office declared. Let's just take a cursory glance at that bombastic self-flattery.
Speaker Farrugia claims he's committed to democratic principles. Curbing the ability of the Opposition to fulfill its duty to ask legitimate parliamentary questions the electorate wants answered has nothing to do with democratic principles. Farrugia's idea of democracy is denying the Opposition leader the opportunity to question the Prime Mminister. When Simon Busuttil asked Joseph Muscat whether Keith Schembri had a bank account in Dubai and an account at Pilatus Bank, the Speaker stopped him, hysterically insisting he couldn't ask that question.
When Jason Azzopardi asked about Joseph Muscat's relationship with Ali Sadr Hasheminejad, the Pilatus Bank Chairman who'd just been arrested in the United States over allegations of breaching US sanctions on Iran, Anglu Farrugia intervened to stop him.
Because the Speaker is "consistently impartial and fair", he rejected questions about how many times Prime Minister Muscat met the Pilatus bank chairman before attending his lavish wedding in Tuscany. Farrugia blocked questions about whether Muscat's chief of staff also attended that wedding.
Anglu Farrugia is so democratic that when the Opposition Leader requested a ruling from the Deputy Speaker over the Speaker's prohibition of those questions, Farrugia denied the request insisting he would make the decision about his own decision, completely contrary to basic principles of justice.
The Speaker now claims his rulings always indicate the legal provisions and/or precedent they're based on. On what legal provisions or precedent did Farrugia decide that questions about Keith Schembri and Joseph Muscat were "not in the public interest"? The Speaker cynically commented that parliamentary questions must "have a factual basis, and not seek confirmation of media rumours". Keith Schembri's ownership of a Pilatus bank account was no media rumour, it was entirely factual. Anglu Farrugia's idea of impartiality is mocking the Opposition and pumping pro-government disinformation from his Speaker's seat to shield the Prime Minister and his Chief of Staff from scrutiny.
Anglu Farrugia has a rich repertoire of partisan and anti-democratic decisions. When Carmelo Abela was found guilty of ethical breaches, Farrugia abstained in his casting vote at the Standards Committee, stalling the adoption of the Standards Commissioner's report. The Speaker first suspended the meeting for an hour and then sheepishly returned to exonerate the Labour minister. How's that for endorsing democratic principles? Using your power to undermine the Standards Commissioner's rulings isn't listed in any legal provisions or precedent. The Speaker abstaining from his casting vote was until then completely unprecedented.
When the damning Commissioner's report about Rosianne Cutajar's brokerage of a property deal was presented at the Standards Committee, the impartial Farrugia voted against the Opposition motion to sanction Cutajar. The Commissioner's report clearly stated she had breached parliamentary ethics but Speaker Farrugia claimed he needed to be certain there had been a breach of ethics. The Commissioner's investigation and detailed report with its volumes of damning evidence didn't suffice for him.
When Opposition MPs on the committee requested the Tax Commissioner and Rosianne Cutajar's loyal friend Charles Farrugia be asked to testify, the Speaker walked out.
After intense public pressure the Standards Committee voted to censure Rosianne Cutajar, but the "impartial" Speaker insisted he would draft "the stern reprimand" (https://timesofmalta.com/article/rosianne-cutajars-stern-reprimand-a-letter-informing-her-of-decision.916176 ) to the erring MP. When the Opposition MPs asked to be informed of the exact wording of his reprimand he refused. Instead Farrugia instructed the House Clerk, Raymond Scicluna, to simply write to Rosianne Cutajar "informing her" of the decision against her. The Speaker's "stern reprimand" was just a polite letter from the house clerk.
When 18 ministers in Robert Abela's cabinet were found guilty of breaching ethical standards by using taxpayer-funded adverts to praise themselves, the neutral arbiter Anglu Farrugia leapt to their defence. He cast his deciding vote against adopting the report. The Standards Commissioner ruled that public funds had been misused by cabinet members and ordered that the money spent out of taxpayers' money should be refunded. But Anglu Farrugia made sure those cabinet members didn't fork out a single cent. With our "fair and impartial" Speaker, Labour ministers can do as they please. Farrugia endorsed their misuse of our money because that's what democratic principles demand.
After Ministers Clayton Bartolo and Clint Camilleri appointed the former's girlfriend to a lucrative fake consultancy post at the Gozo ministry, the Standards Commissioner found them both in breach of ethics. But when the report came before the committee Farrugia again used his casting vote to shield Clint Camilleri from punishment, except for a simple reprimand. Clint Camilleri didn't even have to make an apology. Farrugia also voted against a 30-day parliamentary suspension for Clayton Bartolo. For such an impartial Speaker it's amazing that he always takes the government's side - not once has he voted with the Opposition in the Standards Committee.
He rejected an Opposition motion of no confidence in Byron Camilleri. He cut short a debate on the scandalous drug heist from the AFM's barracks. He rejected requests for debates on Jean Paul Sofia's tragic death, the 400 million Vitals-Steward deal ruled to be "fraudulent" by the courts, the Air Malta collapse, the abuse at Corradino, and so much else. Which "well-established parliamentary principles" kill parliamentary debate?
Anglu Farrugia is no impartial and neutral arbiter. He's a muppet under Labour's thumb. He knows it, Labour knows it, everybody knows it. Even Labour's own Standards Commissioner knows it. Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi reprimanded Anglu Farrugia for his inaction. The Commissioner wrote to Farrugia in June 2023 requesting to be allowed to publish his decisions on his website and to make public statements to the media. Azzopardi wrote to the Speaker again on 5 December 2023 insisting the issue "is now urgent". Over a year later Anglu Farrugia continues to disregard the Standards commissioner's request. Maybe that's another demonstration of Farrugia's "commitment to democratic principles".
Anglu Farrugia's place isn't in parliament. He must be held to account for all the damage he's caused our democracy. He is personally responsible for throttling our representatives in our highest institution and he will be held responsible. He is an embarrassment.