The Venice Commission’s full opinion on Malta’s rule of law will be a "point of reference" for the planned Constitutional Convention, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said on Monday.

In a recorded video message, played to reporters on Monday afternoon (see above), Dr Muscat said the government welcomed the report and it would hand it to the steering committee in charge of coordinating an update to Malta’s Constitution.

He did not give any timeline on when the reforms would be made but hinted that this would take quite some time saying that the process to change such matters was often "lengthy" - involving parliamentary debates and votes.  

Read:What rule of law experts said about Malta - and why it matters.

Considered to be Europe’s highest body on rule of law matters, the commission gave a general overview of its position on Malta in a brief statement released last week before publishing the full report.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat had already weighed in on that matter on Sunday, pledging that his government would implement the recommendations.

The commission recommended strategic changes to Malta’s Constitution intended to buttress the system of checks and balances.

One idea is to vest effective powers in the President as a counterbalance in the governance of the country – the recommendation is for the President to be given popular legitimacy through being elected by a qualified majority in Parliament, rather than being hand-picked by the Prime Minister and then approved by simple parliamentary majority.

Another recommendation is to make the judiciary truly independent of the government, as well as to foster a Parliament that would be untethered from the executive.

The Commission also points to “incompatibilities” in having MPs occupy a revolving door of roles and appointments and suggests they be made full-time members of the House. (See more recommendations below)

In his video message, Dr Muscat, who is currently on his way to an EU-Africa summit in Vienna, said the government was on board with the majority of the recommendations.

He repeatedly pointed out that the laws and structures that were scrutinised by the commission had been in place for generations and were merely inherited by the current administration.

He then proceeded to give an overview of the government’s reforms in the sector as a sort of ‘best hits’ of legislative changes since 2013.

The ball, Dr Muscat said, was now in the court of the Constitutional Convention steering committee – headed by President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.

Formally known as the European Commission for Democracy through Law, the Venice Commission helps bring Council of Europe (CoE) Member States in line with European legal and institutional standards.

The Venice Commission is an advisory body of the Council of Europe.

Its position on Malta comes after a request made by the CoE’s Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee (PACE) and parliamentary assembly, and a separate one made a few days later by Justice Minister Owen Bonnici.

Fielding questions from reporters after the video, Dr Bonnici repeatedly stressed that the government had proactively sought the commission’s opinion on Malta.

“We submitted ourselves to a sort of audit to see where we needed to improve,” he said, shooting down suggestions that the government had only filed a request for an opinion after one had already been made by PACE.

Asked by Times of Malta whether the government feared any negative repercussions from the publication of the opinion, Dr Bonnici was optimistic this would not be the case.

By way of example of how this opinion could potentially impact Malta, Times of Malta pointed out to Dr Bonnici that the report found shortcomings in the way the judiciary was appointed, highlighting potential partiality concerns.

Asked if this could hypothetically lead to the courts of other member states refusing to implement a judgement of the Maltese courts due, Dr Bonnici said he doubted this would be an issue.

He later stressed that on joining the EU back in 2004, the islands democratic and rule of law structures had passed the test and therefore were deemed of European standard.

In its full opinion, the Venice Commission said it welcomed the fact that the Maltese government has already embarked on a process of reforms. These reforms are, however, not sufficient.

From colonial times, Malta has inherited a British inspired Constitution that has been amended several times, but that has not followed reforms that were undertaken in the UK already in the 1980s.

The Prime Minister is at the centre of power and other actors (President, Parliament, Cabinet of Ministers, Judiciary, Ombudsman) have too weak an institutional position to provide sufficient checks and balances.

The introduction of the Judicial Appointments Commission in 2016 was a step in the right direction, but it falls short of ensuring the independence of the judiciary.

The double role of the Attorney General as advisor of the government and as a prosecutor is problematic.

A part-time Parliament is too weak to exercise sufficient control over the executive branch of power, the commission said.

In his video message Dr Muscat went through many of these recommendations and said the government was generally in agreement. Neither he, nor Dr Bonnici identified which recommendations would be ignored.  

Recommendations:

• Judicial vacancies should be announced, an enlarged judicial appointments committee should vet and rank the applicants.

• An independent Director of Public Prosecutions with security of tenure should be established, who takes over prosecuting powers and the corresponding staff from the Attorney General, and the police. Magisterial inquests should be absorbed into this function.

• The position of the President should be strengthened by attributing to him or her powers to act without the advice of the Prime Minister and possibly by electing the President by qualified majority. It should be possible to remove the President by a qualified majority only.

• Parliament should be strengthened by tightening rules on conflicts of incompatibility notably as concerns appointments of MPs to officially appointed bodies. MPs should benefit from non-partisan information to perform their controlling function. This should be accompanied by an increase of MPs’ salaries allowing them to focus on parliamentary work.

• The appointing powers of the Prime Minister, notably as concerns independent commissions and permanent secretaries, should be reduced. Appointments to positions of trust should be strictly limited.

• The Venice Commission insists that it is an international obligation of the government to ensure that the media and civil society can play an active role in public affairs holding the authorities accountable.

Read the commission's full Opinion on Malta here.