Almost two days after Adrian Delia lost a confidence vote, President George Vella has not yet summoned PN MPs to ask them if they still support their leader.
But as the crisis in the opposition persists, experts disagree over whether the president is obliged to do so in this unprecedented situation.
In comments to Times of Malta, former judge Giovanni Bonello said that, as a starting point, it had to be kept in mind that there was no precedent or practice and that no other President had been tasked with making such a call in the past.
According to the former judge, although the wording of the constitution is generally subject to interpretation and the decision rests solely with the President, it was more likely that Vella was waiting for some “formal notice” from the Opposition MPs before acting.
Delia lost a vote of confidence on Tuesday night – when 19 PN MPs voted against the party leader with 11 voting in his favour. This prompted the President to go on “standby” in case Nationalist MPs reached out the next day.
On whether he believed it to be problematic that the vote was taken by secret ballot, Bonello said this should not be an issue since nobody has “challenged” the outcome.
Though Delia has insisted he would stay on as party and opposition leader, he did not challenge the outcome of the vote and had actually confirmed the result during a press conference after a marathon parliamentary group meeting on Tuesday.
Delia’s role as opposition leader is dictated by Article 90(4) of the Constitution.
It rules that the president will “revoke the appointment” if he judges that “the leader of the opposition has ceased to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition...”
According to other constitutional experts who spoke to Times of Malta, the outcome of the vote meant there is clearly currently no legitimate leader of the opposition.
Questions sent to the president’s office have remained unanswered.
Meanwhile, lawyer and former Law Commissioner Franco Debono has insisted the president must act.
“I don’t know what the President is doing but from media reports, it seems there have not been any replies. However, if the President does not act he would be abdicating his responsibilities and that is a very serious issue,” Debono said.
Quoting Article 90(4), Debono said the constitution imposes on the president “an active rather than passive role” and though “no modalities are specified, the spirit seems to be that where a prima facie case exists that such support might be doubtful, the president has a duty to enquire into the situation by for example speaking individually to MPs and reach a judgment”.
“However, in this case it is very clear the opposition leader has lost the required support and the President’s hands are almost tied, he must remove and appoint someone else,” Debono said.
The lawyer had earlier lamented that the constitution supercedes any party statute.
As experts and commentators disagree on what the next step should be, it is believed that the Nationalist MPs are currently debating what their next step will be.