A mistrusted and partial speaker?

It is amazing how politics can generate perceptions that easily tarnish an individual’s reputation and integrity.

I have had first-hand experience coming across Dr Angelo Farrugia’s role and performance during the time when he was a member of the police corps and later as a practising lawyer within our court halls. Throughout all that time, I have no qualms in stating that he possessed all it takes to come very close to the ideal in both fields of activity.

Come 2013, he was elected Speaker of the House, succeeding Michael Frendo, and his position was reconfirmed in 2017. After the last general election, he was elected for an unprecedented third time, endorsed only by the government side of parliament.

Electing a Speaker only requires a simple majority vote, meaning the government does not require the Opposition's backing to push its nominee through.

In the last few years, the Speaker’s performance has been anything but smooth, riddled as it was with raging controversies. The first incident that perplexed even legal experts was when, in May 2021, he abstained from a casting vote on a matter of standards in public life involving Labour MP Carmelo Abela, a move that could lead to the stalling of any future votes and effectively grant immunity to MPs.

Barely three months later, four former parliamentary speakers chose not to take part in a symposium marking 100 years of Maltese parliament due to their belief that far more urgent and important matters had to be discussed. The Speaker had decided not to reconvene to discuss a no-confidence motion in then justice minister Edward Zammit Lewis following revelations of conversations he shared with alleged Daphne Caruana Galizia murder mastermind Yorgen Fenech.

That was followed by another incident a few months later, when not only did he not take the action expected of his office, but he did not even carry out the instructions given to him by the Standards Committee. Rosianne Cutajar’s now-notorious behaviour was defined as unethical by representatives of both sides of the House who formed part of the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee decided to let her off the hook with a simple, harsh ‘telling-off’.

The Speaker failed to use the means at his disposal to ensure that the institution that he is responsible for is not made a mockery of.

In June 2022, former Standards Commissioner George Hyzler published a report about a supplement published in Labour’s newspaper the previous January on the occasion of Robert Abela leading the party for two years. In his report, the Commissioner found that 18 ministers participated in the supplement and that all breached four articles of the Ministerial Code of Ethics by spending €16,700 in public funds for a manifestly partisan scope, and he recommended that the money be paid back.

The Standards in Public Life committee discussed the report in June of last year, with the two government MPs on the committee voting against adopting the report and the two opposition MPs voting in favour of adopting it.

That left the casting vote in the Speaker’s hands, and he voted against its adoption on the basis that the guidelines for political ads, which Hyzler referred to in his report and in his decision to find an ethics breach, were not enshrined in the law.

The political impartiality of the Speaker is one of the office's most important features. The incidences of indiscipline and paralysis in parliament have become standard operating procedure. This has resulted in a decline in the functioning of Malta’s parliament. Could one reason be the lack of independence and impartiality of the Speaker? Mind you, it was during his 10-year tenure that substantial reforms were made to give greater autonomy to parliament, but that does not detract from calling into question his performance to date.

Once elected, the Speaker is expected to be above parties and politics. He is the symbol of a nation’s freedom and liberty. He belongs to all the members and holds the scales of justice evenly, irrespective of party or person. He is referred to as the conscience and guardian of the House, representing its collective voice. He can discipline members and even override decisions by committees, and he has the sole discretion to permit an adjournment motion to be tabled or to admit a calling attention notice if the issue is of urgent public importance.

The present practice of the Speaker being a former active member of the ruling party has the inevitable result of his refusing to allow any debate or discussion that may be essential to the national interest but may embarrass the ruling party. This is leading to constant disruption in parliament by the Opposition. An impartial and independent Speaker is becoming an oxymoron.

Parliament should take steps to strengthen the institution of the Speaker and make it truly independent. Separation of powers is part of the basic structure of our Constitution. If Parliament ceases to be relevant, the foundation of our democracy will progressively get weaker. Hence, the Speaker must take time-bound, non-controversial decisions to honour his constitutional obligation of independence and impartiality.

The Speaker should have business-like habits, knowledge of parliamentary usage, easy elocution, command of temper, strict impartiality, firmness and suavity, symmetrically developed so as to form a commanding presence.

Perhaps the time has come to consider a constitutional amendment whereby the Speaker is elected by a two-thirds majority with the same procedure as that pertaining to the appointment of the Ombudsman.