The lawyer and former senior police officer who presides over parliament – an institution meant to represent democracy and individual rights – appears to have difficulty respecting the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

So does his legal adviser, a constitutional expert to boot.

Speaker Anġlu Farrugia and his lawyer, professor Ian Refalo, have forgotten that this right empowers people to make statements that could be annoying, even offensive.

Protesters urge Speaker Anġlu Farrugia and MP Rosianne Cutajar to go

Matthew Caruana Galizia spoke for many when he told Farrugia in a letter: “In the best interests of our democracy and, due to your proven incapacity and unwillingness to defend parliament from corruption, you should resign immediately.”

Caruana Galizia was reacting to the speaker having let Labour MP Rosianne Cutajar get away with less than a slap on the wrist after she was found by the parliamentary standards committee to have been in breach of MPs’ code of ethics.

If – as Refalo told Caruana Galizia in his reply – the speaker sincerely wants to uphold democracy and democratic government, he should have fallen on the erring MP like a ton of bricks.

He should have imposed the harshest punishment possible to serve as a deterrent.

How dare you, Refalo effectively told Caruana Galizia in a reply whose tone was unbecoming of a legal scholar of his standing.

He accused Caruana Galizia of being ignorant of the law and of parliamentary practice, referring to the House of Representatives (Privileges and Powers) Ordinance and a court judgment dating back to May 2011, in which Daphne Caruana Galizia was found guilty of defaming Farrugia, then a police officer.

The conclusion of Refalo’s letter was enough to make even Louis XIV, the Sun King, roll in his grave: “...in the best interest of democracy and the democratic Government of Malta, the Speaker intends to continue to do his duty as he is required to do at law.”

It was precisely because he feels the speaker has failed parliament, the country and its people that Caruana Galizia wrote to Farrugia.

His concern is shared by many. One reason why the reply on the speaker’s behalf was so violent is that the truth hurts. 

Refalo should instead have advised his client to take a closer look at the very same ordinance he cited, especially the code of ethics annexed to it.

This lays down that members of parliament, who include the speaker, should “at all times, both inside and outside the House” conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the status and dignity of parliament.

It also says that an MP “is in duty bound to relay the complaints of his constituents” and that members are “expected not to use any improper influence, threats or undue pressure”.

Reading the judgment mentioned by Refalo, one would learn that, back in the turbulent early 1980s, Caruana Galizia’s mother, Daphne, was acquitted after having been arraigned by Farrugia, then a police officer, in connection with an activity held in Sliema over the private schools issue.

Former prime minister and speaker Lawrence Gonzi publicly commented: “It is unprecedented that the Speaker of the Maltese Parliament – who speaks on behalf of both the government and the opposition – replies to citizens complaining to him by trying to gag them through a letter signed by a lawyer.”

When Farrugia was elected speaker, he compared his role to that of a judge and swore to carry it out with impartiality and dignity.

He has fallen far short of the standards he set for himself, both in regard to his action on Cutajar and in his reply to Caruana Galizia.

Democracy and democratic government have been given a new meaning under the Labour administration.