Any findings that may result from the Public Inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia’s death are null and void.

From a blog reader.

An article published on this site on 12th August was titled “Bernard Grech u l-bżonn ta’ par idejn sodi.” (Bernard Grech and the need of a pair of strong hands) It is a well-written article to which I fully subscribe. I can give another example of why Dr. Bernard Grech and the Nationalist Party are far from being a “par idejn sodi“. This is the Jean Paul Sofia public inquiry. Despite being a party of lawyers, the Nationalist Party failed to read between the lines of the legal implications that the Prime Minister’s decision has on calling a public inquiry the way he had called it. The Prime Minister did not use the proper channels. He just announced his decision in a press conference without going first to Parliament. In so doing, the prime minister exposed the amateurish way this administration does its business. Thus, any findings of this inquiry can, in the future, be easily challenged in court.

Consequently, Dr. Bernard Grech and the Nationalist Party did not even notice that the Prime Minister, Dr. Robert Abela, was in breach of a parliamentary resolution and possibly violating the country’s Constitution when on 17th July, he announced in a national press conference that a public inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia death would be held. The Opposition has lost another golden opportunity to bring this Government to check. Abela went against his own parliamentary decision since he and his deputies had voted against such an inquiry. Therefore he is in breach of the country’s Constitution.

On 12th July, Parliament voted against a motion to call a public inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia. The Opposition was in favour, but the Government voted against it. This means that Malta’s highest institution decided that no public inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia should be held. Therefore, the Prime Minister, Dr. Robert Abela, could not call an inquiry. His decision went against Parliament. Thus, there is now a legal risk that the findings of this inquiry will be null and void. The office of the Prime Minister is not higher than the institution of Parliament!

Here, the country is missing the par idejn sodi of the Opposition. Dr. Bernard Grech and the Nationalist Party missed this detail and the opportunity to highlight this fact. The Opposition should have asked the Government to go back to Parliament and revert its previous decision and then proceed with the call for a public inquiry. This public inquiry, unlike the one about Daphne Caruana Galizia’s death, has no legal standing. In simple words, the family of Jean Paul Sofia has been taken for a ride. Parliament approved the inquiry into Daphne’s death. Therefore, it was a parliamentary inquiry. This inquiry has no parliament approval. What is worse, our Parliament has voted against it, and no vote was taken to reverse this decision. 

In these circumstances, the Opposition should have written to Malta’s President of the Republic and the Speaker to draw their attention to this breach. The speaker would have been asked for a ruling because the Prime Minister’s decision goes against a parliamentary resolution and, therefore, it is in breach of Parliament. 

In the letter to the President of the Republic, the Opposition would have stated that although it favours a public inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia, the way the Prime Minister called this inquiry was in breach of Malta’s Constitution. Thus, they would ask the President of the Republic, as the guardian of Malta’s Constitution, to ensure that the Government follows the proper procedures and respects the country’s Constitution. 

After sending the letter to the President of Malta and the Speaker, the Opposition would have called a press conference to explain its actions and motives to the whole Nation. Doing so would have bound the President of Malta and the Speaker to take action since it is their duty to observe and safeguard the country’s Constitution. Unfortunately, the Opposition failed to behave in this way.

In these circumstances, the Opposition would have demanded the Government to reconvene Parliament. In front of the national call that this inquiry is unconstitutional because it had been constituted without Parliament’s approval, the prime minister would have no other option but to accept the Opposition’s request and reconvene Parliament. Thus this public inquiry would be set up through the proper channels. Simply put, the Prime Minister would have been forced to suspend the summer recess and revoke the vote taken on 12th July. In doing this, the Opposition would have brought to ridicule this Government in front of the whole Nation.

Instead of acting as a proper Opposition, Bernard Grech and his troupe have been once again led by the Repubblichini and their stooges. The risk is that this inquiry’s findings will be null and void. Thus, the conclusions of this inquiry now risk being contested in the Constitutional Court by anyone who disagrees with them. They may argue that the inquiry was unlawful and that its decisions are null and void. Those responsible will be acquitted on a technicality.

If this has to happen, it would be an embarrassment to the Prime Minister but a bigger embarrassment to the Opposition for failing to do its duty and pointing this legal loophole out.

Sliem.