Motion of censure against PM: Opposition to appeal Speaker’s ruling

The Opposition will be appealing a ruling handed by the Speaker this evening over a motion of censure moved against Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, and which calls for the sacking of OPM chief of staff, Keith Schembri.

The motion was originally one of no confidence against Schembri but, upon the advice of the Speaker and the Clerk of the House, Marlene Farrugia amended her motion to one of censure. This, the Speaker said, ensured that Farrugia’s motion was admissible.

The Opposition yesterday questioned on what basis Speaker Anglu Farrugia told the independent MP that the original motion – which the opposition was to support – was inadmissible.

Simon Busuttil yesterday complained of “legal acrobatics” and that the parliament was “powerless before individuals in a position of trust”.

He drew comparisons with a 2011 motion presented against Richard Cachia Caruana, then permanent representative to the EU, and argued that this had set a precedent.

In his ruling this evening, Anglu Farrugia said that the decision for that motion to be included in the motion book had been at the discretion of the President of the House at the time. At the time the Speaker was Michael Frendo.

As Farrugia explained that it was the Speaker’s discretion to ensure that motion was admissible or not, he warned the Opposition benches that there was “nothing funny about the ruling”.

Farrugia went on to add that, during Cachia Caruana’s motion, then deputy prime minister Tonio Borg had raised a procedural question but failed to request a ruling.

Farrugia drew comparisons with the Australian parliament and how the health minister had faced a motion of censure because of his chief of staff.

The Speaker also sought “professional and legal advice” in conformity with Commonwealth countries – here, Busuttil questioned whether the advice had come from Attorney General Peter Grech, something which Farrugia denied.

The Speaker said that, according to the advice received, the original motion as presented by Marlene Farrugia was inadmissible because it tackled different matters in one motion. Moreover, the person concerned – Schembri – was not answerable to parliament but to the person who employed him on the position of trust basis. It is that person – the Prime Minister – who would however be answerable to parliament.

On the other hand, Cachia Caruana had fulfilled functions stemming from the Constitution.

“It is the prime minister and the ministers who are politically responsible of their staff and therefore a motion of censure has to be done against elected members of parliament.”

At the end of the 30-minute ruling, PN deputy leader Mario de Marco announced that the opposition will be appealing the Speaker’s decision.