I refer to the editorial in The Sunday Times of Malta entitled ‘Time to amend the constitution’ (December 15, 2024). This is a highly important subject that has been widely discussed.
It is also a topic of personal significance to me because, five years ago, I was given a clear mandate by the prime minister to pursue, in the shortest possible time, significant reforms for our country, both from a constitutional and an institutional perspective. This work began in late January 2020 and was concluded in early August of the same year.
There is no doubt that celebrating 50 years of Malta as a republic, which we celebrated not long ago, was a crucial event in our nation’s democratic journey, just as independence in 1964 certainly is.
Broadly speaking, it must be said that, both from a constitutional perspective and from the perspective of the institutions of our country, our constitution has served our country well, allowing it to progress. However, this does not mean that now, or over the times, there has not been a need to reflect on further changes for the good of our country, as a modern democracy.
Although the editorial fails to mention the important package of reforms that took place in 2020, this in no way diminishes their importance as one of the most significant steps this country has taken to strengthen its democracy since independence.
In 2020, Mark Chetcuti became the first chief justice in the judicial and political history of the republic to be appointed through a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives, even before such a statutory requirement existed.
A package of 10 bills was presented in parliament, which became law within a few months. These reforms primarily focused on the following:
The president of the republic elected by a minimum two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives and having the final word in the appointment of members of the judiciary following the recommendation of the three most suitable candidates by an independent and reformed Judicial Appointments Committee;
The chief justice, also elected by a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives;
An important constitutional amendment was passed concerning the removal and discipline of judges and magistrates. It established that members of the judiciary are to be judged by their peers. This process is now overseen by a subcommittee of the Commission for the Administration of Justice, composed of three judicial bench members elected by their peers, according to rules issued by the commission. Politicians and parliament are no longer involved in these procedures.
These laws also paved the way for other institutional reforms, such as: (a) The strengthening the Permanent Commission Against Corruption (PCAC); (b) The gradual transfer of prosecutorial roles for serious crimes from the executive police to the attorney general, a process which is now practically complete; (c) The establishment of a new judicial review procedure for cases where the attorney general issues a nolle prosequi (a decision not to prosecute).
These reforms were accomplished with great determination and within a short timeframe. They were not undertaken simply because the need for them arose at that moment in time. Many of them should have been implemented in the last quarter century of our democratic journey but never were, by one Nationalist minister after the other.
Franco Debono proposed a package of positive reforms. Unfortunately, the government at the time not only failed to implement these reforms but also ignored Debono- Edward Zammit Lewis
This is not merely my opinion; it is an undeniable historical fact that a PN MP during the 2008–2013 legislature, Franco Debono, proposed a package of innovative and positive reforms. Unfortunately, the government at the time not only failed to implement these reforms but also ignored Debono, who paid a political price for being proactive in this regard and shaking up the system and the ‘status quo’.
It is evident, though conspicuously unrecognised in the editorial, that the reforms were not implemented earlier due to a lack of political will. It is very difficult for those in power to relinquish vested powers. It is therefore easier to advocate for bold reforms while in opposition. Ironically, many of those speaking out for more changes today had every opportunity to be the agents of change but did not do anything when they held the power to do so.
Nevertheless, we must now look forward. While the reforms I spearheaded in 2020 were important, there is still work to be done to further advance our democracy.
I disagree with the assertion in The Sunday Times of Malta editorial that the presidency should lead this process. This approach may have made sense a decade ago. However, we have now seen three presidencies pledge to act in this regard, with little to show for it. With all due respect to both the current and previous presidents, it was the 2020 reforms and other reforms, led by my colleague, Owen Bonnici when he was justice minister, that allowed us to move forward in certain areas of our democracy.
Furthermore, some necessary reforms may well be called for in the office of the president itself, making it unwise for the president to lead them.
Finally, meaningful reforms that produce concrete results cannot occur without the full involvement of the executive and parliament, as parliament ultimately promulgates the laws. Parliament also carries the democratic legitimacy of the Maltese and Gozitan people, having been elected in a general election.
I feel I must propose a solution on the way forward. The government, in collaboration with the opposition, should initiate a process to identify key themes requiring reform, both constitutional and institutional. Undoubtedly, certain themes such as the powers of the prime minister, granting the president of Malta more powers in a modern republic, electoral reform, environmental protection, freedom of expression and others, have to be discussed. Parliament should then be involved, either through permanent committees or ‘ad hoc’ committees in line with standing orders.
This does not mean reforms will remain dominated by the two major political parties. On the contrary, the process should involve experts in various fields and NGOs, which have an important role to play. Each theme discussed in committee should have set deadlines for delivering results – whether in the form of new laws, constitutional amendments or institutional reforms that may not require legislative changes but structural ones.
If necessary, advice from European and international committees or institutions could be sought.
Let us be positive as a nation and move forward in this direction.
Edward Zammit Lewis is a former Labour cabinet minister.