Tag: Adrian Delia

Categories
Constitutional Development

George fought the law and Adrian won

PR 201337 – “Press Release from the Office of the President” does not feature on the DOI Press Release page. It should be there since PR 201336 and PR 201338 are both on the page. I tried to find out whether the President’s Office that has its own PRO had distributed the PR through the DOI. Unfortunately Caroline Muscat, theShiftNews editor, could not confirm because – get this – the DOI refuses to add theShiftNews to the newsroom list.

Why does the President (and for what matters, even the Speaker of the House) use the DOI for his PR? Shouldn’t they have their own PR office issuing its own press releases? But those are not the glitches in our democracy that we are here to comment today. We are more concerned with the content of the PR 201337 because it concerns the long-awaited disquisition by the President (upon advice of anonymous legal experts) concerning the issue of the Leader of the Opposition in the House (LOOH for short).

Let us begin from the end. At the end of his statement, the President invokes the Principle of Necessity as the underlying reason for his decision. The beauty of the use of this principle is that it sets the minds at rest of all those who disagree with the interpretation favoured by the President and his men (and Adrian Delia of course). Why so? Well the reason is simple. The Principle of Necessity is used as a last resort in the words of the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton “when that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity”.

In layman’s terms the President is saying that he is conscious of the unlawfulness of his decision and interpretation but a higher necessity required him to rule in such a manner anyway. It would be facile to blame the President’s medical background but that would mean ignoring the legal savants who deemed this perilous advice to be good enough for him to administer on the nation.

Said advisors skimmed through Article 90’s inherent contradictions and in lieu of providing a solution based on law, they chose to apply the aforementioned Doctrine of Necessity: an unlawful solution in the better interests of… There lies the crux… the better interests of whom? In the words of the President this would be the “protection of the democratic process and the serene atmosphere which must reign in Parliament and in the country in general”.

In opting for this doctrine the President’s advisors steamrollered over any consideration concerning article 90 other than the admission that a combined reading of 90(4) and 90(2) could result in revoking and appointing Adrian Delia ad infinitum. Having discarded the possibility of leaving the LOOH office vacant (there will be a LOOH according to article 90 has been read as there will be one at all times) the solution was simple: we keep him there because it is a remedy for serenity.

The ball was then thrown into the political party court (from whence it came) with the President washing his hands of the problem and saying “come back when you have a new leader of the party or when you have solved your trust issues”.

Which begs the question. How serene and progressive is our parliamentary democracy when a President reads the constitution (unlawfully by his own admission) in such a way as to impose a LOOH on the opposition who has lost the trust of 2/3 of them?

The press pounced on the words ‘depart from the constitution’ when reporting the President’s Press Release. It’s worse. He openly broke it. “That which is otherwise not lawful” remember?

George Vella fought the law and Adrian Delia has won. Time to quote Swift again…

“It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of decreeing accordingly.”

– Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels
Categories
Long & Short

Long & Short 3 – Delia Clutching at Straws

“Irid ikun il-Kap tal-Partit li jrid ikun il-Kap tal-Oppozizzjoni.”

Adrian Delia, former Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Nationalist Party

1. FACT: This is rubbish being peddled by Adrian Delia. Pure and utter bullshit.
2. FACT: Even if we consider the roundabout way George “standby” Vella will ask every single member to confirm their lack of confidence in Delia. The point still stands – Delia’s appointment by the President to Leader of opposition in the house has to be revoked.
3. FACT: Delia’s insistence that the only person to fill the new post has to be the Leader of the Party is a lie. It is based on a literal interpretation of the article relating to the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition in the House.
4. FACT: If the Leader of the Party no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority of MPs in opposition then it is clear that the other option would be triggered: the MP from the majority party in opposition who enjoys the confidence of a majority of MPs will be appointed. This is what Delia is hiding from.
5. FACT: Delia is hoping to shift battleground to the challenge for leadership of the party with his various tesserati propping him up. This should not preclude George Vella from removing him from Leader of the Opposition in the House.
6. FACT: No matter how many facebook posts or poems Delia will use to claim that he still is the Leader of the Opposition in the House, he is, by law, already out of that office. We only have to wait for the President to finish his roundabout consultation and confirm the obvious – that Delia no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority of MPs in opposition.
7. FACT: The President isn’t bound by the PN Statute and has to apply 90(4) (revocation). With Delia’s reading 90(4) would be just a decoration.
8. OPINION: Again we are witnessing a political party attempting to manipulate constitutional issues for its own needs. Again a political party and its troubled leader is trumping the highest institution of the land – The President of the Republic. George Vella must stop dragging his feet and he must revoke Delia’s appointment yesterday.

Categories
Long & Short

Long & Short 2 – The Therese Comodini Cachia nomination

1. FACT: Therese Comodini Cachia has been nominated to the post of Leader of the Opposition of the House.
2. FACT: She has been nominated because she enjoys the confidence of a majority from the largest group of members in the opposition. (read majority from among the PN MPs)
3. FACT: Adrian Delia is still Leader (Kap) of the Nationalist Party.
4. FACT: The constitution does allow for a Leader of the Opposition to be different from the Leader of the Party
5. FACT: If the newly paraded statute of the PN can be interpreted in a way that violates the constitutional provisions then it is the statute that is null, not the constitution.
6. OPINION: the mere fact that the PN statute was rewritten in this way provides ample evidence of the arrogant attitude that the main political parties have with regards to the constitution. They have always considered it their playground and their carpet.
7. OPINION: Therese Comodini Cachia’s nomination is most welcome and this not because she is a woman (which should not matter one bit, ever) but because she has proven her mettle time and again. I was one of those who harshly criticised her original decision to not take her seat in parliament when elected. I recognize her change of mind as an active conscious choice to take part in the struggle against corruption.
8. OPINION: the true test for the PN is not which faction wins the next steps but rather whether the old PN reflected in the clumsy statute changes will be left to die and a new PN that reneges the tribalist aspects of its past will replace it. There is a long way to go.

Categories
Constitutional Development

The Constitutional Matters (I)

As Malta braces itself for an invasion of constitutional experts I thought it would be opportune to throw my hat in the ring with a short series of Constitutional posts related directly or indirectly to what is happening at the moment.

The matter of who is the de iure and de facto Leader of the Opposition is the current hot potato just as the hapless Delia has lost a vote of confidence among the nationalist MPs. That vote confirmed that Delia no longer ‘commands the support of the largest single group of members of the House in opposition to the Government who are prepared to support one leader’. The words in quote are taken from article 90(2)(b) of the Constitution and as we shall see they are part of a conundrum relating to the appointment, tenure and removal of the Leader of the Opposition under our Constitution.

I say conundrum with intent. The whole of article 90 presents us with a series of alternative situations that should they occur would lead to the appointment or removal of a Leader of the Opposition.

Appointment

Unlike in the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister, political parties are mentioned when it comes to the choice of Leader of Opposition. Article 80 concerning the appointment of the Prime Minister in fact refers to the member ‘best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House’. Article 90 on the other hand is the only article in the constitution to refer to the leader of a political party.

So, insofar as the appointment of the leader of the opposition is concerned, the first option for the President (article 90(2)(a)) is triggered if there is one opposition party whose numerical strength is greater than any other opposition party (in our case PN is larger than PD). In such a case the President will appoint the leader of that party as Leader of the Opposition.

In the hypothetical situation that no one opposition party is larger than the other (equal number of MPs) or there is no opposition party (all MPs are independent in opposition) then the President has to look for the person who commands the support of the largest group of members in the opposition. In this case no reference is made to party leadership. (article 90 (2)(b)).

Vacancy

Article 90(3) gives us all the options when the office of the Leader of the Opposition becomes vacant. The obvious reasons are when there has just been an election (dissolution of parliament) or if the leader of the opposition has ceased to be a member of the House. There is a final option which is covered by Article 90(4) which covers revocation of his appointment,

Revocation

If , in the judgment of the President, a member of the House of Representatives other than the Leader of the Opposition, has become the Leader in the House of the opposition party having the greatest numerical strength in the House or, as the case may be, the Leader of the Opposition has ceased to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition to the Government, the President shall revoke the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.

Article 90(4), Constitution of Malta

This sub-article really provides two alternatives. First of all we have the situation where the Leader of the Opposition is replaced as leader of his own party. Presumably this would mean that there has been a move within the party and the Leader was voted out with a new one voted in. That automatically triggers a change in the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

The second, more delicate, alternative occurs where the Leader of the Opposition ceases to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition. No more talk of political parties here. The measure is clear – if the Leader of the Opposition no longer enjoys the confidence of a majority among the opposition members then the President must revoke his appointment.

Now the vote of confidence taken at PN HQ is clear. Of the 30 PN MPs 19 voted against Delia (17 of these are MPs, 2 (Metsola and Casa) are MEPs). 10 voted in his favour (and Delia himself). We do not even need to factor in the two other Opposition MPs from the third party (PD) because that still leaves Delia in a minority. There should be no way out constitutionally for Delia.

The Presidents’ prerogative is qualified with the words “in his judgment” though I doubt if George Vella can come up with a plausible reason to deny all evidence pointing to the obvious. Delia no longer commands the confidence of a majority of opposition MPs. His appointment to Leader of Opposition should be revoked.

Political Party Leadership

Delia is pandering to the harridans and populists with his calls to respect the vote of the tesserati. He is using that excuse to cling to his position as Leader of the Opposition. As we have seen though the two posts are not linked directly. Rather, that vote of confidence has effectively ended Delia’s tenure as Leader of the Opposition both de iure and de facto. What remains to be done is for George Vella to snap out of “standby” mode and revoke his appointment.

For the time being Delia can cling to the leadership of the party with desperate claws. It would not be the first time that he prioritises his own aims over the needs of a nation and of his own party. Meanwhile the ‘rebel MPs’ need to get going. There is a constitutional role that needs filling. Finding one among them to fulfill the duties of leader of Opposition should not take too long. Also, if the President drags his feet any longer on the revocation they might need to up their ante by walking up to his door and presenting their chosen candidate.

And the UK

Interestingly enough our former colonial overlords who bequeathed upon us a particular form of parliamentary democracy have a peculiar way of identifying the Leader of the Opposition. It is not the Queen (in lieu of our President) who determines the leader but the Speaker of the House – and this only in case of dispute. The accepted choice is normally, as in Malta, the Leader of the largest party in Opposition. However under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (1975), we find the following provision:


(1) In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons; and “Chief Opposition Whip” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, the person for the time being nominated as such by the Leader of the Opposition in that House; and “Assistant Opposition Whip”, in relation to the House of Commons, means a person for the time being nominated as such, and to be paid as such, by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.

(2) If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.

Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (1975), Article 2

Categories
Mediawatch Rule of Law

Train wrecks don’t need derailing

Adrian Delia has dismissed reports on messages between him and Yorgen Fenech as “a mudslinging attempt aimed at derailing his work“. The Sunday coffee table news was dominated by an apparent ‘scoop’ from the Times of Malta uncovering the supposed ‘exchange’ of Whatsapp messages. There had even been a dramatic build up with an earlier confrontation by a Times journalist.

Like some latter-day Saint Peter, Delia was repeatedly asked to deny whether he had ever had any form of relationship with Fenech by a journalist who was obviously already in possession of the ‘incriminating’ evidence (that would be kept on hold till the convenient Sunday publication date for full effect. No cocks crowd on the day of the interview but the Times made a big deal of the issue today.

Having seen the supposed Whatsapp exchange (and only on the basis of what has been shown), I think that I can safely conclude that this was a case of harassment by Fenech. Delia seems to have little time for his entreatments and rarely replies until what seems to be a fob off by passing Fenech on to Pierre Portelli to fix a dinner/lunch which we are not even sure ever happened.

The thousands of sleuths who grace the Maltese Republic were all over the social media condemning Delia for this latest “lie”. In his earlier interview with the Times journalist Delia had wriggled and writhed to try to give a legalistic reply – one that implied that if by communication there was meant some sort of dealing then no he did not communicate with Yorgen. Delia might have had this Whatsapp harassment in mind. Surely in normal circumstances nobody in their right mind would consider Yorgen’s pseudo-sycophantic messaging as a basis of some form of effective communication with Delia.

Surely. But this is not normal. In a world of Whataboutism gone mad we have the Sunday papers dominated by a very weak exchange that is neither here nor there while trying to build a very spurious link to Delia being another of Yorgen Fenech’s political relationships. For some context. Labour’s cabinet is still labouring (sorry) under the heavy accusation of having a member who had a much more than platonic relationship with Fenech. Another one is deep in business dealings with Fenech (not the Arrigo style). Yet here we are trying to cause a storm for a one-way set of messages.

You’d think that the Times would have a much higher standard in its quest of fulfilling the fourth estate’s role in a democracy. As things stand it seems to be a weak platform for the disgraced Labour government’s use to disseminate confusion. Worse still it leads to situations where Delia, of all people, can cling to a victim’s alibi of attempts at derailing him.

Now that’s a first. Delia has already long proven to be unfit for political action let alone leadership. His time as PN leader has proven to be a train wreck. To derail a train that is already wrecked and picking up the pieces is something that only a paper desperate for a distraction from the real issues can achieve.

Categories
Mediawatch

Leader of the Opposition

Adrian Delia is frantically fighting a race against time. It has become increasingly evident that his gamble for leadership of the nationalist party did not include the foresight or plan that would account for the fact that he needs to find a way to get into parliament. This lack of foresight does not bode well for the nationalist party – that it is lead by someone unable to make the most simple of calculations is not exactly a bright light for the future. If my sources are right, plan B for Delia and his entourage seems to be the harassing of a number of MPs that are judged as most likely to want (or to be forced) to give up their seat and make way for the half-heartedly anointed one. It is a clumsy and roundabout way of doing things that jars conspicuously with the declared marketing of TeamDelia of wanting to unite the party behind Adrian as quickly as possible.

Unwitting supporters have even been asked to turn their guns onto the PD as though the damned coalition meant that the Democratic Party owed the Nationalist Party anything other than collaboration in parliament against the forces of corruption. Kudos to Marlene Farrugia who has strongly retorted that she will not be turned in this respect and that the PD will jump at any chance to take the place of any MP who chooses to call it quits and force a by-election. Of course Delia and his team will choose to take this opportunity to ride roughshod over the concept of coalition and collaboration – hatred of anything the coalition was about is after all one of the hallmarks of Delia’s New Way. So much for a deeper understanding of the changes that are necessary in the way politics is made.

But what about the Holy Grail position of the Leader of the Opposition? Well, constitutionally we are in a bit of a conundrum. First of all, none of the conditions that create a vacancy of the position of Leader of Opposition (Article 90(3) of the Constitution) has been fulfilled so technically since Simon Busuttil is still a member of the House of Representatives and consequently has not vacated the position. Let us assume that by informing the President of his intention to no longer lead the nationalist party, Simon Busuttil has de facto given up his place as Leader of the Opposition that he occupied under the terms of 90(2)(a) of the Constitution. In that case, until Delia manages to find a way into Parliament we can try to see who can legitimately fill that constitutional role come the 1st of October. Whichever scenario you take, whether it is under article 90(2)(a) (the MP who leads the opposition party with the largest number of members) or under article 90(4) (If, in the judgment of the President, a member of the House of Representatives other than the Leader of the Opposition, has become the Leader in the House of the opposition party having the greatest numerical strength in the House) – in both cases the Leader of the Opposition is (a) a member of the house and (b) commands/leads the largest number of opposition members. In the absence of the party leader (Adrian Delia) the obvious constitutional choice until the dilemma is solved is to nominate the Deputy Leader for Parliamentary matters (Mario DeMarco) as the Leader of the Opposition.

Sure, it can be a strange situation where the Leader of the Party is not the same person as the Leader of the Opposition but this does not mean that it cannot and will not work. As I said, Delia should have foreseen this situation before he decided to throw in his name as a leadership candidate. It’s not like he was not asked the question as from the start of his campaign. Even a minimum of constitutional knowledge would have told him that no MP on any side of the house owes any party anything. The seats are not theirs to give – they have been elected by their constituents and owe them the duty of representation. Giving up that seat for a man who only three months ago was unwilling to represent any part of the nation would be a betrayal of their constituents of the highest order.

I am quite sure that in the end one MP will be found who will give in to the heavy handed tactics of TeamDelia. It does not bode well at all though. It is one thing to elbow your way into the leadership of a party, it is another altogether to bulldoze your way into a constitutional position without the least bit of deference to the constitutional principles that underlie a constitutional democracy.