You’d think that with the number of aspirant legislators in this country they’d have got the lawmaking business down to a tee. Every candidate that aspires to represent you in the hallowed halls of parliament (and in the future of Piano’s parliament) is also aspiring to form a significant part of the law-making process. Parliament votes on, amends and approves, laws proposed to it by the Executive branch that is wholly made up of individuals that had been elected to parliament in the first place.
The juridical branch of the separation of powers is there to “interpret” the law if I may borrow a phrase from EU Treaty parlance – and to ensure that the law is observed. The tool for the juridical branch is the law as framed and enacted by the other two branches – the executive (government) and the legislative (parliament). So when the Times of Malta publishes an article that states that “consequences of interdiction (are) lighter than thought” in the VAT case we should start asking questions like: How come nobody int he exectuive or legislative has noticed this anomaly?
Apparently the anomaly arises because interdiction under criminal law (and the VAT cases are criminal) is not as wide ranging as interdiction under civil law. The consequences of criminal interdiction seem to be limited prima facie to “the right to hold public office” and the right to contest elections. Civil interdicition includes the right to buy and sell property and enter into contracts – something that does not seem to be prohibited under criminal law.
The Ministry of Justice speaks of an anomaly. Another one, after the Gaming furore, that had slipped the brains of the governments best legal experts (and contracted advisors). The war on VAT fraud will definitely suffer a blow if this “anomaly” is confirmed. Worse still, we might expect a patching-up, knee-jerk kind of amendment that is not the best medicine for a coherent body of criminal law. One wonders whether a parallel civil action could be instituted against the individuals concerned – particularly since only a few days ago it was reported that the government was intent on recovering the funds that had been siphoned off its income.
One final interesting point is the interaction between public perception and the law/state in this case. As in the gaming case the law is seen as being “anomalous” because public perception expected more from it. At the end of the day the punishment meted out to the VAT-shy gentlemen is just what the legislator ordered. Strictly speaking the law was correctly interpreted and applied. It becomes “anomalous” because the public is baying for tax avoiders to be brought to the guillotine, because the government wants to be seen to be strong on this issue and of course because otherwise Inhobbkom Joseph might attempt to steal the show with his “government is too weak” approach.
What is anomalous is the hodge-podge way of approaching and appreciating the process of law-making. And that goes for both the group sitting in the directionless one-seat majority (pace Franco) as well as for those warming the opportunistic opposition benches.
