Farrugia Sacco protests reactivation of 2012 impeachment motion

Judge Lino Farrugia Sacco has filed a judicial protest calling on Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Opposition leader Simon Busuttil, amongst others, to respect his fundamental human rights as dictated by the European Convention of Human Rights and to follow the laws as laid down in the Maltese Constitution.

In the judicial protest filed this morning, Farrugia Sacco's lawyers argue that former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and then PN deputy leader Simon Busuttil had pushed forward an impeachment motion based on allegations featured in British newspaper The Times.

The lawyers argued the two failed to verify whether the allegations were true before moving forward with the impeachment motion.

The impeachment motion also quoted Farrugia Sacco's refusal to step down as president of the Malta Olympic Committee, in breach of the judiciary's code of ethics.

On 28 January 2014, Speaker Anglu Farrugia declared the original impeachment motion as "dead" and, on the same night, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat presented a new impeachment motion against the judge.

According to the laws regulating the Commission for the Administration of Justice, filing a new impeachment motion requires the CAJ to investigate the matter and then report back to the House with the outcome of the investigation and its recommendation.

Farrugia Sacco's defence team argued that according to Article 9 of Chapter 369 of the Constitution, a judge facing impeachment should be notified of the accusations and given the opportunity to present a written declaration.

But on February 3, the CAJ informed the Speaker that it had nothing to add to its original investigation. On 4 February, the Speaker informed the CAJ that, while the original motion was dead, the new motion had to follow the course as dictated by the law. The CAJ replied that the previous decision still holds and it was a "definite decision".

According to Farrugia Sacco, the stance adopted by the CAJ was in breach of the Constitution since no new investigation took place following the filing of the 2014 impeachment motion. He argued that he wasn't given the right to a hearing, as should be his fundamental right, while the CAJ ignored the directions given by the Speaker.

"It's obvious that the Commission couldn't, at the stroke of a pen, reactivate the 2012 motion," he said.