Much has been written lately about the powers of the President of Malta, and I would like to clarify the matter somewhat. 

I strongly disagree with the idea or the suggestion that the president should intervene beyond what he has already done. 

The issue is exquisitely one concerning how parliamentary democracy should properly work and the proper place of the president in such a system. 

Of course, our constitution is brief as it contains only the main elements and rules of government; the rest is supplemented by convention and usage. 

It is important to keep in mind that our constitution, though written, retains to a large extent its conventional character, which it inherited from the British constitution, which in its turn is mainly conventional. 

This characteristic allows for a larger ease of change to adapt to evolving circumstances. But certain principles in relation to the appointment and removal of the prime minister seem to have always been adhered to over innumerable decades, at least since Great Britain could be really said to have had a parliamentary form of government.

It is the loss of the confidence of the House which  determines that removal

One of the enduring conventions is that related to the removal of the prime minister from his office. It is the loss of the confidence of the House which 
determines that removal; there have been no occasions in Malta where a prime minister had to be removed, for on losing the vote of confidence he himself would advise a dissolution or offer his resignation.

The occasions I can recall are those of Paul Boffa in 1948, the crisis of 1958 with the resignation of Dom Mintoff, the dissolution following the advice by Alfred Sant in 1998 and the dissolution following the advice of Lawrence Gonzi in 2013. 

These are instances from the Maltese constitutional experience. Others can be cited from the British experience.

In a parliamentary system such as the Maltese one – a system the Maltese have inherited from the British – the only way to public power is through the ballot box, and the rules and conventions of the constitution are precisely meant to ensure that. 

This is democracy in its basic working – government by the people as the old adage would have it. The president is morally bound to safeguard that fundamental principle of democratic government.

The president is therefore bound to appoint to the Office of the Prime Minister that person who commands the majority support of the members of Parliament, a support which, in its turn, has been introduced after the 1986 amendments to reflect the majority in the country. 

He, the prime minister, stays in office until parliament so determines; the removal from office of the prime minister is through a vote of lack of confidence in the House of Representatives and not otherwise. When that happens, the rules of the constitution regarding removal and dismissal come into play. 

But there is certainly no precedent in Malta and the UK over at least the last 100 years allowing the president, or in the case of the UK, the monarch, to remove a prime minister from office who still enjoys the majority support in Parliament. 

Had the president to act differently he would be failing in his constitutional and moral obligation to see to the proper working of the constitution. 

There have been instances of difficulty but none where the Head of State took it upon himself to remove a prime minister from office where the House had not clearly expressed its loss of confidence in him through an appropriate parliamentary vote. 

Prof. Ian Refalo is professor of Public Law at the University of Malta.