The controversial magisterial inquiry law that passed through parliament earlier this month is “constitutionally sound”, the justice minister has insisted after Repubblika announced it will be challenging it in court.

“The law has been approved by the highest institution of the country (parliament), and it is a law that respects the constitution of our country. The law will offer various benefits in procedures for our citizens,” Jonathan Attard insisted.

He said it would “strengthen” access to justice and “create a process where all the parties involved have more responsibility” and ensure that citizens have the right to seek a remedy after filing the first report with police.

The bill, which passed through parliament’s final stage last week, is controversial because it removes a citizen’s right to directly request a magisterial inquiry. Once the bill becomes law, a citizen must first approach the police and have a higher standard of proof.

Rule of law NGO Repubblika has announced it will challenge the law in the constitutional court, based on the EU’s “non-regression principle”, which prevents member states from taking backward steps in the rule of law.

Since Malta’s constitution states that parliament must create laws that adhere to European law, and because EU courts have mentioned the “non-regression” principle in their decisions, the new law is unconstitutional, Repubblika has argued.

“The European Court made it clear that, where the rule of law is concerned, it is not permissible for a member state of the European Union to take steps backward instead of forward,” Repubblika has argued.

But Attard scoffed at the “non-regression” principle argument, saying the NGO has previously failed by using this tactic to challenge the government.

He was referring to the NGO’s 2021 European Court of Justice case against the prime minister’s power to appoint judges from a shortlist.

Although the government won the case, it had already changed the way judges are appointed to a system where judicial appointments are made following a public call and an evaluation by the Judicial Appointments Committee.