Let me state it clearly from the outset: the no-confidence motion against the Nationalist Mayor Helen Gauci presented by the Labour Party councillors within the Għargħur local council was in full accordance with the law.
Article 29 of the Local Government Act (Chapter 363 of the Laws of Malta) states that the mayor shall cease to hold office upon a vote of no confidence delivered by a majority of the councillors in office. The motion proposing a vote of no confidence in the Mayor shall be signed by at least one-third of the Councillors in office, who shall specify the reason for such motion and propose another Councillor to be elected as Mayor.
"Dura lex sed lex", we lawyers often argue to exploit some legal loophole or shortcoming. The law is harsh, but it is the law.
This is exactly how Labour councillors went about it in toppling outgoing Mayor Helen Gauci.
But what raises multiple serious questions that can go on to further question the legitimacy of the initiation and subsequent approval of the motion is how and why it all started.
First, one must keep in mind that the PN secured 62% of votes in last June's local council election, with 1,253 first-count votes to Labour's 759, and with Helen Gauci impressively obtaining 869 first-count votes. Secondly, the motion nominated PL councillor Mariah Meli as mayor, despite receiving half the votes of Gauci in June.
Last month, Deputy Mayor Francesca Attard resigned from the Nationalist Party, alleging that she wants to work "free from political pressure", eventually turning the tables on her former party and further going on to back a motion to remove the PN mayor Helen Gauci and replace her with PL councillor Mariah Meli, who miserably obtained just 433 first count votes, less than half of what Gauci garnered.
What sparked this sudden, unexpected and uncalled-for overbalance in the composition of the Għargħur Local Council centred on a 2023 agreement in which the government leased Fort Anċieretka to the local council, which was then subleased to the Don Bosco Foundation?
The deal had been approved during a Nationalist-led administration and had, at the time, the support of Labour Party councillors. The Lands Authority not only approved the contract but also set the rent at €750 per year.
Not only did the agreement not limit the residents' use of the fort, but it also explicitly states that the premises are to be used for community benefit and that the Don Bosco Foundation is not allowed to charge for public access.
There was no personal or political interest involved, and any suggestion of personal or political motives behind the sublease cannot even be alleged by any stretch of the imagination.
The wording of the no-confidence motion itself is couched in such generic terms as to make one reasonably think that the Labour councillors made use of the issue, with the complicit help of renegade Attard, to push private political agendas rather than bringing forward constructive criticism or proposals.
To the minds of the Labour councillors and renegade Francesca Attard, the motion was ostensibly triggered in the best interest of the residents, who deserve that the locality be managed in full transparency as required by good governance.
The motion came at a time after several requests to provide information on "suspicious and potentially irregular expenditures" made by the mayor, with the PL and independent councillors, however, remaining "in the dark", albeit asked to approve payments "month after month".
Asked to substantiate such claims even before the presentation of the motion, those councillors were never forthcoming.
So what should one make of this one-of-a-kind manoeuvre?
I have heard many Għargħur residents expressing their genuine concern over this recomposition of their local council with a new political typology. They consider this unprecedented move as a Labour Party's attempt to seize control of the Council against the wishes of the residents outlined in the ballot box. A growing number of residents are currently collecting signatures in support of the current (or outgoing, depending on one's point of view) mayor, Helen Gauci.
Was democracy lawfully put in danger at Għargħur? It is a question I never thought I'd be asking.
We have watched Labour politicians say and do things that are unprecedented in Malta, but that we recognise as having been the precursors of democratic crises in other places.
The majority of Għargħur residents feel dread, as do so many other residents in other localities, even as they try to reassure themselves that things can't be that bad there. One would have thought that our political and electoral set-up should inoculate us from the kind of democratic breakdown that has occurred in the tiny, quaint village of Għargħur.
Yet, we worry. Labour councillors now treat their rival councillors as enemies, intimidating them, and threaten to reject the results of elections. They are trying to weaken the institutional buffers of our democracy, which are now in danger of becoming laboratories of authoritarianism, starting with the Għargħur Local Council ploy.
What happened in Għargħur can be considered an act of administrative sabotage meant to stultify the PN's objectives for the residents of Għargħur to the detriment of those same residents.
It's a bad moon rising for Għargħur.
Come the next election, active, engaged voters in Għargħur must be willing to get involved and prepared to reward the improvers, the doers, the scrutineers and those who genuinely have their community at heart.
Dr. Mark Said is a lawyer