The Chamber of Advocates expressed its concern over the government’s urge to fast-track a bill to reform magisterial inquiries after it was put forward for parliamentary consideration earlier this week.
In a press statement on Saturday, the chamber questioned the urgency from the government to rush a bill, which was published days ago, through parliament without allowing proper consultation from all stakeholders.
Earlier this week, the Labour Party announced it would bring the proposed reforms to a parliamentary debate on Tuesday. Bills usually take far longer before being debated in parliament and eventually becoming law, sometimes taking years.
“The Chamber of Advocates maintains that the bill should be discussed and analysed calmy and in the detail it deserves, as beyond the rights at stake, the amendments may directly impact ongoing or potential legal proceedings, with serious consequences,” the statement reads.
The proposed bill will prevent private citizens from immediately requesting a magisterial inquiry, forcing them to instead file a police report and wait six months before being allowed to submit a request to the courts, where a judge – not a magistrate - will decide whether the inquiry should proceed.
Other planned changes will grant victims and their relatives the right to be kept informed of ongoing investigations, and the process for appointing court experts will also be regulated.
The chamber said it is “unacceptable” to eliminate the citizen’s right to directly approach an inquiring magistrate to report abuse. It insisted that it should be the courts - not the police - that determine whether an inquiry should be initiated.
While the camber acknowledged the importance of ensuring transparency in legal procedures, it should not come at the cost of weakening citizens’ rights.
It continued to criticise the bill for imposing strict deadlines on inquiries led by magistrates while pointing out that police investigations are not subject to such deadlines.
The bill also says that only evidence that is admissible in court can be used to request an inquiry.
The chamber also took issue with the threshold required to initiate an inquiry and argued that suspicion alone should be sufficient, and evidence will be gathered as the inquiry progresses.
It also pointed out the use of hearsay evidence in certain cases, pointing out that the European Court of Human Rights recognised its admissibility since 2011.
“Since such evidence is admissible in criminal court to establish guilt, the chamber sees no reason why it should not also be sufficient to open an inquiry when warranted,” it said.
The chamber also criticised the proposed bill’s restrictions on experts expressing their opinions, particularly since such opinions are permitted in other areas of Maltese law beyond the Criminal Code.
It also disagreed with the provision that expert payments should be based on standard local rates, as it is not always feasible.
It ended its statement by highlighting how no one should be above the law and that legal amendments should not be used to impact fundamental rights. It urged the bill to undergo proper scrutiny, allowing for a thorough and balanced discussion, rather than rushing legislative approval.
Retroactive aspect raises doubts - Malta Employers
Meanwhile, the Malta Employers urged the Justice Minister to focus on the “positive points” within the bill to reform magisterial inquiries, and to “scrap” the proposals that could erode citizen’s fundamental rights and weaken good governance.
In a statement, the Malta Employers said enhancing the rights of persons that are subject to a magisterial enquiry, setting timelines and defining the role of experts are issues which should draw political consensus as they improve the current system.
“However, limiting or prohibiting the access by individuals to an enquiring magistrate, by having them resort to the police as a first point of call is an erosion of their rights,” the statement read.
“Enquiries of momentous importance concluded recently would not have been initiated under the proposed regulations.”
Malta Employers added that currently, a magistrate can still decide not to proceed with a case unless presented with reasonable evidence, therefore the system is already filtering out cases which may be deemed as “frivolous”.
“A magistrate may have good reason to proceed with an enquiry even though it may eventually be found to be no case, and this is the reason why s/he can appoint his/her own experts,” it continued.
"It is a system that has worked well and struck a good balance between taking action where there is a possible case of infringements such as money laundering or corruption. The retroactive aspect of the proposed law also raises doubts about its true intentions."
The Malta Employers highlighted how the government should listen to the former Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, who said the inquiry reform “will only shield politicians”, and should act in good faith to ensure fairness, good governance, and access to justice in the interest of Maltese society.