.png)
.png)
Far-rightist accuses Constitutional court of ‘passing the buck’ to former Attorney General
Norman Lowell web-post hints at unfairness if former Attorney General presides over his constitutional case.
4 September 2010, 12:00am
Matthew Vella
Matthew Vella
1 min read
Far-rightist Norman Lowell, convicted to two years’ imprisonment and suspended for four on incitement to racial hatred, is claiming the former Attorney General Silvio Camilleri who prosecuted the same charges will be presiding over the constitutional case Lowell filed to quash the sentence.
Camilleri was appointed Chief Justice this week, replacing Vincent De Gaetano, who is now appointed to the European Court of Human Rights.
Lowell’s case, initially scheduled for next Monday 6 September will now be postponed to 29 October. Lowell is now accusing De Gaetano of thinking “it fit to avoid taking a decision.”
The far-rightist claims his case is a “test piece case” that will be a “decision of prime importance for the freedom of our people”, after he was found guilty of incitement to racial hatred in several pieces he wrote.
Lowell's was not the first case of incitement to racial hatred in Malta.
Writing in his typical verse on the internet forum he runs, Lowell denounced the “shameful passing of the buck” to Camilleri, who as prosecutor started proceedings against him. “The very man who ignored two Judicial Protests… regarding the blatant breaking of the Electoral Law where five scoundrels stole an Election and made mockery of our Democracy.”
Matthew Vella, a freelance journalist at MaltaToday, was formerly executive editor at Malt...
Michael Gauci •
Norman Lowell does not run the website you refer to and if you performed decent journalistic prowess you would find he hasn't even posted anything for almost a year.
What a farce when a case takes so long that the person who instigated the proceedings is going to be preciding over the judgment.
'The Family' is exposed again by Lowell,that is why the establishment hate him.
Anthony Galea •
There has just been a case in which a man (Clayton Galea) was acquitted of drug related charges on appeal because the AG "alleged facts that were incorrect and which did not feature in the proceedings."
What would have happened if the Chief Justice was the ex-Attorney General? This appointment reflects very poor judgement indeed. Words like 'family' and 'omerta' spring to mind.
