Update 2 | Opposition request revision of Speaker’s privilege ruling

The Opposition will present a parliamentary motion asking for a review of the Speaker's ruling that found a breach of privilege against leader Simon Busuttil.

Standing Orders give MPs two days to demand a revision of a ruling.

Busuttil yesterday led the Opposition out of parliament in protest at the ruling of the Speaker that found him in breach of privilege after claiming that the government had influence or directed the Commissioner of Police not to press criminal charges against former European commissioner John Dalli.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat demanded he retract or substantiate his statement, made on Monday, and then demanded a ruling from the Speaker.

"With this ruling, Busuttil is being stopped from making an expression of a political opinion or simply coming to a political conclusion, and our motion is asking for each and every MP's right to express themselves, to be safeguarded," PN deputy leader for parliamentary affairs Mario de Marco said.

De Marco said that Muscat's request for a ruling was an exercise in restriction of MPs' freedom of expression that could have a "detrimental effect on democracy".

"We must make a distinction between offending an MP by stating that they are 'corrupt' and someone taking an offence at a political opinion. Busuttil's was a political conclusion to which he had every right to make. It was something he had been stating publicly for a number of days.

"The irony is that parliamentary privilege gives MPs the right to say what they might sued for defamation for outside of the House, but here it is being used to censure someone for saying something that has already been said outside."

De Marco said that if the Speaker turns down the request for revision, the PN will take the matter to the privileges committee, and probably appeal any decision in the Constitutional Court.

In its motion, the Opposition held that the Prime Minister's request for a ruling equated to an attempt to "censure the right to freedom of political expression and consequently undermine parliamentary democracy."

The motion was presented to the Speaker of the House this evening and the decision is expected to be given in the next sitting.

Standing order 60 stipulates that "No member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against the character or proceedings of the House or in reference to any member thereof. No bad motive shall be attributed to any member."

Moreover, Standing Order 61 holds that "Any member having used objectionable words and not retracting the same, or offering apologies for the use thereof, to the satisfaction of the House, shall be censured or otherwise dealt with as the House may think fit, and any member called to order shall sit down unless permitted to explain."

However, in comments to MaltaToday earlier today, PN deputy leader for Parliamentary matters Mario de Marco said that a distinction should be made between using outright offensive language and someone taking offence at a political opinion.

The Opposition motion also noted that the Speaker's ruling that  the Opposition leader was in "prima facie breach of privilege," did not mean or imply that Busuttil was guilty or innocent as stipulated by Article 11(1) of the House of Representatives (Privileges and Powers) Ordinance.

This article holds that "the term "prima facie" shall mean that a complaint raised alleges a breach of a rule set out in this Ordinance or in the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives or any resolution approved by the House of Representatives in relation to the acts referred to in the said subarticle (4), and shall in no case mean or imply an expression of guilt or innocence."

The Opposition also claimed that in his request for a ruling, the Prime Minister failed to make reference to a particular standing order and this was against practice as recorded in a motion presented by former labour whip Joe Mizzi on 22 March 2006.

Citing Standing Order 62, the PN noted that 'it shall be competent for any member by motion made after notice and within two days of the giving of such ruling, to move that such ruling of the Speaker be reviewed and reported upon the House; such report shall be entered in the minutes of the proceedings of the House."

Should the Speaker rule against the Opposition's bid to have Tuesday's ruling revised, the matter will be up to the Privileges Committee, which is ultimately responsible for determining whether MPs are in breach of privilege and which can take action against them, including censuring or 'naming' MPs, which could lead to the suspension of the involved members.

Yesterday, Anglu Farrugia ruled that there had been a breach of privilege after Busuttil said that Commissioner of Police Peter Paul Zammit had unilaterally declared there were no charges to be pressed against former European Commissioner John Dalli, under influence of the Prime Minister or the Labour government.

Farrugia's ruling was given after Prime Minister Joseph Muscat demanded that Busuttil substantiate his allegation, or retract his comments. According to the Standing Orders, MPs cannot attribute a "bad motive" to members of the House, and any MP accused of using "objectionable words" and not retracting or offering apologies, can be censured.

In an opinion piece appearing in The Times today, Nationalist deputy leader for parliamentary affairs Mario de Marco said the lack of transparency over the Dalli case had raised the suspicion of interference. "What is relevant here is that the incoming Commissioner of Police, within days of being appointed, decided to overrule the conclusions of the investigative team of his predecessor and the advice of the Attorney General and take two steps back. The way things were handled regrettably smell of interference in the course of justice. The lack of transparency, and silence by the authorities that be, make the smell more odious. Silence is not always golden."

Yesterday Busuttil said he would fight the ruling, even taking the matter up to the European Court of Human Rights, after accusing Muscat of using parliament to gag the Opposition.

Busuttil insisted he was basing his argument on the testimony given by former police commissioner John Rizzo, who last week told a court during the compilation of evidence of Silvio Zammit that he had the go-ahead from the Attorney General to arraign Dalli on charges of bribery. The arraignment however never occurred, and after Rizzo's resignation and the appointment of Peter Paul Zammit, it was declared that there was "no case" against Dalli.

Busuttil concluded that there had been political interference. "I have been repeating this publicly for several times, but the Prime Minister has decided to use Parliament to gag the Opposition. If he didn't agree with what I had publicly said, he could have sued me for libel. But he didn't," Busuttil said.

The Opposition leader said "it didn't make sense" that something which could be said outside could not be said in Parliament. "What we are seeing here is the undermining of democracy."