Robert Abela is being far more logical and correct than George Vella when he refuses to have an acting prime minister appointed every time he is away or on vacation.
The constitution provides for such eventualities, ensuring executive action can be taken even when either the president or the prime minister are not physically on the island.
Politicians, no doubt with the help of legal experts, inevitably find ways to ensure the wording of the constitution is observed though not necessarily the spirit. That is bad faith.
That is why it is more honourable to take the prime minister’s route than have to resort to machinations as had to be done when the president refused to sign the new IVF law.
It bears recalling what the constitution says in relation to both the appointment of a president and prime minister as well as ‘acting’ appointments.
The president is appointed by resolution of parliament supported by at least two-thirds of the members. If the president is absent from Malta, on vacation or cannot perform his constitutional functions, an acting president is appointed.
The president appoints as prime minister the MP who, in his or her judgment, is best able to command the support of a majority of members.
If the prime minister is away from Malta, on holiday or unable to perform their duties due to sickness, the president “may” authorise a Cabinet member to fulfil such functions.
Whereas the constitution opts for the term “shall” when referring to the appointment of an acting president, it uses “may” in relation to an acting prime minister.
This vindicates Abela’s stand of travelling overseas – for official business or for pleasure – without first ensuring an acting prime minister is appointed. What is being discussed here is not whether Abela is right or wrong in being away so often but, rather, whether he always needs to be ‘substituted’ when absent.
Social media memes portrayed crowds asking: ‘Where’s Robert?’
It is better to wonder where the prime minister is rather than who the real prime minister is. The latter was the question asked in relation to the presidency when Vella ‘escaped’ so as not to sign a law he was evidently not comfortable with.
Endorsing laws is a prime function of the president. It signals his acceptance and approval of legislation both as head of state and as guardian of the constitution, in line with which one expects all laws to be.
As argued before in this editorial, if the president has a problem with a law, citizens are justified to wonder whether it should form part of the statute book at all.
The constitution lays down that when “a bill is presented to the president for assent, he shall without delay signify that he assents”. What happened on July 27 can set a dangerous precedent of a constitutional nature. On that day, the office of the president issued an official statement saying the president had gone to the UK.
The deputy prime minister tweeted that “the office of the president today signed the new IVF law”. It was the newly appointed acting president who did.
But when it comes to assenting to laws, the constitution refers to the president, not his office. Vella, the ‘real’ president of the republic, abdicated his constitutional duties but made a mockery of the constitution.
Abela’s summertime ‘absence’ has inadvertently re-cast the spotlight on the president and again brought home the need for the relevant proviso in the constitution to be amended.