“The proposal of the opposition leader is symptomatic of him,” Robert Abela derided. Abela was responding to proposals by the opposition to change the parliamentary standards committee structure. Abela’s two MPs on that committee, Edward Zammit Lewis and Glenn Bedingfield, had made a mockery of parliamentary standards, staunchly abetted by the sycophantic speaker.

Repeatedly and persistently, Labour’s MPs deviously perverted the course of justice to defend their colleagues and friends. They used all possible tactics, from walking out of meetings, refusing to attend, voting against publishing the commissioner’s reports, refusing to adopt or delaying adoption of reports and even outright false accusations of leaks.

The speaker was even more determined to undermine the standards commissioner and ensure that guilty Labour MPs were protected. The last straw was the most recent charade relating to Rosianne Cutajar.

The speaker, as chairman of the standards committee, was tasked with implementing the committee decision: that Cutajar should receive a stern reprimand, the least possible sanction, as Zammit Lewis put it. Instead of doing so, Speaker Anġlu Farrugia simply sent her a letter informing her of the decision to reprimand her.

If the sanction were a fine, the speaker should have been responsible for collecting that fine from Cutajar. Instead, what he did was send her a letter informing her that the committee had decided to fine her, without even attempting to recoup the money from her. Yet, for Abela, “it is a law that is being implemented well”.

“Every time an institution does not decide as the opposition leader wishes, heads must roll or the law change,” Abela mocked. He fails to sense the outrage of the considerable number of decent citizens who are mortified at the public whitewashing of his MPs’ indiscretions. His warped defence of the perverted justice intensifies that rage. 

The opposition leader’s concerns are shared by many.

The Times of Malta editorial noted that the speaker has failed parliament, the country and the people. “Farrugia swore to carry out his role with impartiality and dignity – he has fallen far short of those standards”.

In another editorial in July, Times of Malta commented that “Farrugia has failed to live up to the role he holds”. It lamented that the speaker behaves as the government’s gatekeeper and that “a suitable replacement” should be found.

The Malta Independent echoed those concerns in its own editorial in August.  “The speaker has more or less acted as a gatekeeper for government; his decisions throw great doubt on his ability to be impartial.”

The revulsion at Farrugia’s partisan approach is palpable. But not for Abela, who inhabits a detached, privileged universe. “The speaker has a casting vote as agreed by both sides of the House – there was no contestation,” Abela insisted. But that was then.

Nobody imagined that any human being could steep to such depths. No one could foresee how barefaced and completely bereft of honour Farrugia could be.

Labour’s MPs repeatedly perverted the course of justice to defend their colleagues and friends- Kevin Cassar

Abela’s argument is equivalent to telling a woman subjected to relentless violent abuse by her husband that she should lump it because she took her wedding vows.

“May I remind you that the law was unanimously agreed by both sides,” Abela defended. He descends into pathetically bizarre arguments. The fact that both sides agreed to the law at the time does not make it perfect. Laws need to be changed when they are found lacking, when they fail to meet the expectations of society or when they are redolent with loopholes.

The law as it stands fails to meet its objective: to ensure MPs uphold standards of public life and, when they don’t, face repercussions, without favour.

The law is seriously flawed. The call to amend it, or, preferably, completely overhaul it, is not only justified but urgent. As it stands, the law is a mockery allowing blatant and obscene abuse to go unpunished. It serves only to reassure Labour MPs that, no matter how badly they behave, they need not answer for their actions.

The Evolution of Law, by Alan Watson, seeks to explain why and how law changes in mature systems. The ‘why’ refers to the impulses and motives for the changes and one of those is the existence of a societal need that the current law does not satisfy. Another is the realisation that there is a formal gap in the rules which needs to be filled.

Abela is being cynical. He knows the law is not working or, rather, that it is working very well in his favour, which is why he won’t change it. It’s also the reason why he shamelessly keeps the two worst offenders, Bedingfield and Zammit Lewis, on that standards committee – a total oxymoron.

Abela’s cynicism is also why he won’t dump Farrugia.

Abela is also being dishonest. “Both sides agreed on the sanction,” he claimed. The truth is there was strong disagreement on the sanction. The Nationalist MPs proposed a 30-day suspension from parliament but Labour’s MPs voted against. They were determined to cushion the blow for their colleague, Cutajar, and recommended only a reprimand. The Nationalist MPs voted against this. That sanction was not unanimously agreed, as Abela falsely claimed.

The Nationalist MPs had good reason to vote against. They wanted to know the exact wording of that reprimand, but the speaker insisted that his office would draw it up later and send the MPs a copy, after the vote was taken. No wonder. That letter contained no reprimand at all. The speaker had fooled the committee or, rather, the PN’s committee members.

“The law is being implemented well,” is Abela’s insult to the nation.

Its current implementation exposes the Macchiavellianism Abela regularly resorts to. It displays his unprincipled and cynical actions, his manipulation to get what he wants and his defence of others as a strategy to control them. Abela directs the committee’s shameless decisions and then dishonestly claims unanimity where total disagreement reigns.