Malta, the constitution enunciates, is a democratic republic founded on work and on respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.
The justice minister speaks of the legal system’s integrity and moving “beyond the rhetoric of political posturing and work towards meaningful change that upholds the principles of justice for all”.
Reality, however, can be quite different. The justice delivery chain still leaves a lot to be desired. The same goes for human rights about which Malta has been censured by the European Court of Human Rights.
Almost 10 long years ago, Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent Degaetano had noted that awareness by the public of what fundamental human rights really entail in practice was lacking in Malta.
His predecessor at the European Court, Giovanni Bonello remains dismayed at the manner in which human rights violation claims have been handled by some members of the judiciary. As recent as November 2022, he wrote: “Join me in a requiem for article 46, the most relentlessly sodomised provision of the constitution.” That article, he noted, had been included “to guarantee the protection of human rights”.
Judging by what the ombudsman publicly declared recently, things are not getting any better. Late last year, he had submitted to the government legislative proposals that would ensure his office would also serve as the country’s national human rights institution (NHRI) in accordance with the Paris Principles of the United Nations. Having received no feedback whatsoever, the ombudsman decided to go ahead and publish the new law he drafted.
The guardian of good public administration deems it a “pressing need” for Malta to have “a robust and independent” national institution focused on promoting fundamental human rights and freedoms.
The way the government has been going about dealing with the rule of law and the administration of justice proves beyond any doubt – reasonable or not – that, sadly, human rights wrongs continue to be perpetuated.
The desperate move by the government to significantly restrict citizens’ right to ask for magisterial inquiries is manifestly a recent case in point.
A comment accompanying the Times of Malta’s NHRI report echoed a point Degaetano raised in the past and repeated. It shows how fake the government is when it speaks about the promotion of human rights.
It was on December 8, 2015, that the government signed and ratified a protocol forming part of the European Convention on Human Rights. The protocol, which came into effect on April 1, 2016, enshrines the principle of non-discrimination in the enjoyment of any right listed in domestic law and not just the substantive provisions in the convention.
However, the government has yet to include the protocol in the schedule to the European Convention Act, meaning it cannot be invoked before the Maltese courts.
It had happened before. The Malta Labour Party had, in its 1971 electoral manifesto, pledged to give the people the right to individual petition to the European Court of Human Rights. That only happened on the eve of the 1987 general election.
So, law-abiding citizens should not hold their breath as they wait for the government to accede to the ombudsman’s NHRI wishes.
More so, when he is proposing a comprehensive definition of human rights, encompassing rights set out in international, regional and domestic instruments, as well as those recognised by national and international courts.
Certainly not as long as the government keeps declaring through its actions: “Je suis la loi.”