Opposition now backing bill to protect public officers from legal action

The Opposition has expressed its support for a bill to protect public officers who are sued for actions they take in the course of their work, saying that the wording of the bill is different from statements made by the prime minister in January about what the government intended doing.

The new legislation will cover the members of the civil service, public entity employees and members of the disciplined corps. 

It will also apply to those with a constitutional role, including the attorney general, the auditor general, judges, magistrates and others who lead tribunals, persons of trust and members of parliament. 

The state will cover any costs imposed by the courts where it is shown that the officials involved had not acted negligently. But no such state coverage will be given if those officials are found guilty of criminal offences or gross negligence.

The shadow minister for justice, Karol Aquilina said the Opposition was now backing the bill because its provisions were different from what the prime minister had originally said the government would do.

“This is a positive law. It strengthens the hand of public officials and protects them from those who might want to use them to carry out illegal, immoral and criminal acts,” Aquilina said, pointing out that the law would simply codify what was already done in practice.  

The new law, he said, would not protect those who abused or those involved in abuse and corruption. 

Despite the Opposition's agreement with the legislation in principle, he said some points needed to be clarified, including whether the bill covered all workers who interacted with the government in some way, including those employed with state agencies and authorities, and those who delivered a service to the state via a private contractor.  

“The definition of a public sector worker should include everyone who has a public function, whether that is delivered through a tender, outsourcing and so on.” 

The Opposition is also seeking clarification of definitions related to asset freezes 

Aquilina noted that the proposed legislation is very different from what Prime Minister Robert Abela had mooted in January. 

Back then, the prime minister had said that “clearly innocent” people were being “terrorised” by people abusing the criminal justice system, later referring to two former civil servants facing criminal charges: Alfred Camilleri and Joseph Rapa. 

“We are very happy that he has come here with an improved bill and not the stupidity he had previously talked about,” Aqulina said. 

Law is a form of insurance policy:  Abela 

The debate on the bill was opened by Prime Minister Robert Abea who said that the proposed legislation addressed the fears of around 33,000 public sector workers, which he said were stoked by the opposition when it started a campaign of coordinated attacks against certain individuals, including the attorney general, the state advocate and the police commissioner.  

“The opposition carries out these attacks because it believes that by paralysing the civil service, it can paralyse government and prevent it from carrying out its agenda,” he said. 

He also referred to a 2020 case against members of the Armed Forces, who were accused, together with Abela himself, of being responsible for the deaths of migrants at sea. A magisterial inquiry cleared them of homicide charges. 

Abela also recalled an incident in 2012, when disciplinary action was taken against a police sergeant who fired shots at a car that failed to stop at a roadblock. 

“We cannot allow workers who carry out their duties in good faith to face the threat of legal action. My message to workers is that so long as you are not found to be grossly negligent, we will do everything necessary to protect you,” he said, describing the legislation as a form of insurance policy.  

Abela also explained, however, that if a public official was convicted by a criminal court, the government has the right not to pay for any civil damages. In cases when the state has already paid such damages before the criminal court judgement, it would have the right to recoup those costs.