Updated at 12.17pm with Speaker's reaction and PL statement below.

Speaker Anglu Farrugia on Wednesday rejected PN claims of political bias and partisan interests in his running of the House of Representatives and said he was committed to the observance of Standing Orders and democratic principles.

"The Speaker deems it imperative to reaffirm his unwavering commitment to upholding the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives of Malta. The role of the Speaker is to ensure order, fairness, and adherence to parliamentary procedures, and any allegations suggesting otherwise are entirely unfounded," his office said after a strongly-worded statement by the PN parliamentary group.

In a statement earlier, the PN called for parliament to be run impartially, seriously, and democratically, rather than with political bias and in the partisan interests of the party in government. Its statement followed a rowdy exchange on Tuesday between the Speaker and Nationalist MPs, notably Karol Aquilina. 

"It is truly condemnable that Prime Minister Robert Abela, following in his predecessor’s footsteps, continues to manipulate and control Speaker Anġlu Farrugia to silence and obstruct PN MPs from fulfilling their constitutional duties as the Opposition. Equally scandalous is the fact that Speaker Anġlu Farrugia continues to render himself a partisan and anti-democratic political tool in the hands of Robert Abela," the PN said. 

It said the way how Farrugia was leading parliament was hindering it from fulfilling its role as the Opposition in accordance with Malta’s Constitution.

"As has been evident on multiple occasions, Speaker Anġlu Farrugia continues to run Parliament with the same prejudice against the PN’s Parliamentary Group that he demonstrated when he was deputy leader of the Labour Party."

The PN pointed out that in this legislature alone, Speaker Farrugia had:

1.       Issued numerous rulings that were inconsistent with each other and went against the spirit and intent of the Standing Orders, practices, customs, and traditions of the Maltese Parliament;

2.       Rejected every request for an urgent parliamentary debate put forward by the Opposition, including those concerning:

(a)      The tragic death of young Jean-Paul Sofia;

(b)      The €400 million fraud in the Vitals and Steward case;

(c)      The theft of over 200 kilogrammes of drugs from an AFM barracks;

(d)      The failure and closure of Air Malta;

(e)      The Ombudsman’s report on abuses at the Corradino Correctional Facility; and

(f)      The resignation or dismissal of former Finance Minister Edward Scicluna from his post as Governor of the Central Bank of Malta and of Ronald Mizzi as Permanent Secretary.

The party said Farrugia was complicit in shielding the prime minister, ministers, and parliamentary secretaries from accountability regarding breaches of the code of ethics. In his role as chairman of the Standing Committee on Standards in Public Life, he voted against or abstained from imposing sanctions on those found guilty.

He failed to afford Nationalist MPs the same protection he granted to government MPs, even in clear cases of threats, insults, and false allegations against them.

Farrugia also failed to act when parliamentary questions were left unanswered on time or adequately, and when ministers failed to provide copies of documents they themselves referred to in their replies, the PN said. 

No action was taken to raise the number of sittings allocated for debates on numerous bills and motions presented by Nationalist MPs, limiting them to a single session every six months.

"The Nationalist Party’s Parliamentary Group considers all these actions as abuses that should not be tolerated or sanctioned in a democracy. Therefore, the Parliamentary Group will immediately request an urgent meeting with Speaker Anġlu Farrugia so that a delegation can directly and clearly convey the Parliamentary Group’s position and demand immediate remedies and actions," the PN said. 

PL urges Nationalist MPs to stand up to Karol Aquilina

In a reaction, the Labour Party said the PN's vicious attack on the Speaker was another confirmation that PN MP Karol Aquilina, who barely made it to parliament at the last general election, has promoted himself de facto leader of the PN.

It said the statement showed that Aquilina "has grown bigger than the party itself, leads Bernard Grech by the nose and is doing all this for his own interests: launching vile attacks on targets of his own choosing."

It said Aquilina has been attacking Farrugia relentlessly in successive parliamentary sittings, calling him 'obscene' and 'unable to think'.

Many of his parliamentary colleagues had refrained from backing him up, the PL claimed, and Aquilina had now ordered Bernard Grech to launch an attack on the Speaker.

"Aquilina's aim is to make his PN parliamentary 'colleagues' complicit in his senseless attacks, forcing them to back him up publicly. If Bernard Grech still has some authority left within the party, he must comdemn Aquilina's arrogant behaviour.

"As for the rest of the PN MPs, who in private say that Aquilina is embarrassing them, now is the time to stand up and be counted," the PL said.

Speaker says he has consistently demonstrated an impartial and fair approach to his duties

The Office of the Speaker in its reaction to the PN statement, said the Speaker’s decisions were not arbitrary but rooted in the Standing Orders and the principle of precedent, which govern parliamentary conduct.

"His rulings on procedural matters, including the acceptance or rejection of motions for urgent debates, are based on well-established parliamentary principles that have been consistently applied, in the same way that these were applied by other Speakers before him."

It said that recent claims questioning the Speaker’s impartiality, particularly regarding his decisions on urgent debates, failed to acknowledge the legal and procedural framework that guided these rulings.

It also pointed out that the Standing Orders of the House provide that any decision made by the Speaker, including that regarding requests for urgent debates, can be formally contested within two days of giving such decision. Despite this democratic provision, no formal contestation of the Speaker’s rulings was made.

As for maintaining order during parliamentary sittings, including measures against members who defy the authority of the Chair or disrupt proceedings, the Office said such actions are not politically motivated but are essential to uphold the discipline and decorum expected in Parliament.

"The Speaker notes that he has consistently demonstrated an impartial and fair approach to his duties, ensuring that Parliament remains a space of constructive debate and legislative progress, and that any criticism should be measured against the fact that his rulings always indicate clearly the legal provisions and/or precedent they are based on."

It said that in his rulings, the Speaker had often shared concerns raised by MPs requesting rulings for the Chair, arguing however that he was bound to observe the rules which regulate parliamentary work.

"In several instances, such as with regard to replies to parliamentary questions, he has appealed to both sides of the House to take forward the process of the revision of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, during which process many of these concerns can be addressed."

The Office said, the Speaker remains resolute in safeguarding his role as a neutral arbiter with a firm commitment to democratic principles.