A year ago, President George Vellaannounced the start of a three-month public consultation process on constitutional reform. He said that “the [major political parties] will definitely not be in a position to impose their decisions on the rest of the representatives of society”. He was determined to give ample space for civil society to express its views.

Yet today Malta stands on the cusp of a number of major changes to the Constitution which will be  enacted without any consultation with civil society or, so far as it is possible to discern, any formal consultation by government or opposition with key experts in the academic and legal fields who have made a deep studxy of the Constitution. Why?

There is no doubt that President Vella’s constitutional reform programme has been thrown off-course by the coronavirus emergency. But there is a lingering suspicion that the group of PL and PN current or former members of parliament who form part of the president’s reform group felt more comfortable carving out pressing reforms politically free from the influence of constitutional experts or civil society activists.

In fairness – and more importantly perhaps –­ the pressure placed on the government by a sweeping report two years ago of the Venice Commission shone an uncomfortable searchlight on the urgent need for a review of how the checks and balances in our Constitution operate – an issue lying at the heart of international and home-grown criticism about the rule of law in Malta that it was imperative for government to address.

Following an intense dialogue with the Venice Commission, the government has now put in place a series of reforms in line with its recommendations.

Among the major institutional and constitutional changes, those affecting the appointment of the president and the chief justice have taken centre stage following intense negotiations between the government and the opposition.

The president and the chief justice will in future be appointed by a two-thirds parliamentary majority instead of a simple majority as now. There will be no fall-back position in case of failure by parliament to agree upon a two-thirds majority – a decision which, in extremis, could lead to constitutional deadlock.

The president’s responsibilities have been extended to place all judicial appointments (formerly the  prerogative of the prime minister) solely under his remit, advised by a reformed Judicial Appointments Committee. Matters concerning the removal of judges or magistrates will in future be decided by the Commission for the Administration of Justice 

The Constitution represents the bedrock of the democratic governance of Malta. It is the rule-book regulating the governing institutions and constitutes the supreme law of Malta.

The Independence Constitution, which came into effect 56 years ago, has served the country well.

However, events over the last seven years have exposed deficiencies that need correction.

Some of these have been partially addressed by the recent passage of bills affecting the crucial constitutional positions of the president and the chief justice, among others.

It must be hoped that when the long-promised constitutional reform process (which it is reported President Vella remains committed to pursue) gets properly under way they will be subjected to closer scrutiny of their wider impact on the rest of the Constitution than has happened so far – most importantly the continuing challenge of checks and balances to stem the accumulation of powers in the executive.