The Prime Minister's insistence that Malta was facing a constitutional crisis unless Parliament voted on the appointment of a Chief Justice before the term of the current Chief Justice expires, is constitutionally incorrect and profoundly misleading.
The Constitution of Malta does not merely anticipate disagreement in judicial appointments - it explicitly regulates it. To characterise the present situation as a constitutional emergency is to disregard the plain wording of the supreme law.
Article 96(3) of the Constitution provides that where a resolution supported by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives is not obtained, "the person occupying the office of Chief Justice shall, in any circumstance, remain in office until the resolution is supported." The wording is deliberate and emphatic. The phrase "in any circumstance" is neither accidental nor symbolic. It exists to guarantee continuity and to prevent precisely the vacuum now being rhetorically invoked.
There is therefore no legal basis for the assertion that failure to vote, delay, or lack of consensus produces a constitutional breakdown or crisis - as the PM is alleging. The office of Chief Justice does not lapse. Judicial authority does not expire. The Superior Courts continue to function under constitutionally valid leadership.
A constitutional crisis arises only where the constitutional order itself fails - when institutions are unable to operate, authority is contested, or the Constitution provides no operative solution. None of those conditions is present. On the contrary, the Constitution supplies a clear and effective answer, and that answer is currently in force.
The requirement of a two-thirds parliamentary majority is not a procedural inconvenience. It is a deliberate constitutional safeguard, designed to ensure that the head of the judiciary enjoys broad, cross-party confidence. Such safeguards necessarily tolerate delay. The possibility that consensus may not be immediately achieved is not a defect; it is a foreseeable consequence of a system intended to protect judicial independence from partisan dominance.
Political frustration does not transform deadlock into crisis.
It is particularly troubling when constitutional language is used as a tool of blame. The Opposition is under no constitutional obligation to endorse a government nominee. The Constitution requires consensus, not acquiescence. Consensus cannot be manufactured through alarmist rhetoric or public pressure.
Notably, Malta's constitutional institutions have not endorsed the crisis narrative. The Speaker of the House relied squarely on Article 96(3) when addressing procedural objections. The President of the Republic appealed for dialogue and restraint, not emergency intervention. Neither suggested that the constitutional order was under threat.
Repeated invocation of a "constitutional crisis" where none exists risks more than political exaggeration. It weakens public understanding of what a genuine constitutional emergency actually is and undermines confidence in the Constitution's capacity to regulate disagreement.
Malta is not facing a constitutional emergency. The judiciary is functioning. The Constitution is functioning. What exists is a political impasse - and presenting it as constitutional collapse does a disservice to the rule of law and to democratic discourse.
Dr. Joseph P. Bonello is a lawyer.