With full publicity and at public expense, the government published its reforms to implement the Venice Commission proposals. It remains to be seen to what extent these proposals meet the exacting demands of the Venice Commission. One of them will certainly fail the test.

I am referring to the proposal that appointments to certain offices should no longer be made by the prime minister but by the cabinet. Wow! Even in a situation where the government has only a one-seat parliamentary majority, let alone seven, the prime minister dominates the cabinet.

As the British constitutional jurist Prof. Stanley Alexander de Smith said: “Hardly anyone today will make out a case for the position that the prime minister is merely a primus inter pares”. He hires and fires members of the cabinet. He is the keystone of the cabinet arch. He is not even bound by a majority opinion of his colleagues. He sets the agenda, presides over cabinet and can remove anyone at will. So the reform being proposed in this respect is a mere sham.

The prime minister hires and fires members of the cabinet. He is the keystone of the cabinet arch- Tonio Borg

On the contrary, the opposition, through a document published on May 18, has proposed that all the chairpersons of the constitutional authorities and commissions – which incidentally are excluded from the government’s proposals – be appointed by two-thirds of the House, and in case of failure to reach this target, such persons are appointed by the President acting according to his own deliberate judgment.

The key positions such as President of Malta, the police commissioner and the attorney general shall be appointed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Above all, a new commissioner against corruption is being proposed, who will have the power to institute criminal proceedings against any person suspected of corrupt practices, without the need of approval by the police. Indeed, for the first time such an official would give orders to the police himself. Such an officer would be appointed and be removed by a two-thirds majority of our MPs.

The opposition is also proposing a new system for judicial appointments, namely that an appointments committee, in which the members of the judiciary would have a in-built majority of its membership, will propose the names of candidates to fill any vacancy. The President today acts on the binding advice of the prime minister. In virtue of the opposition’s proposal, he will act on the advice of the appointments committee.

The government’s proposals do not mention anything on the rights about citizens; the opposition is making two vital proposals in this regard.

The Constitution shall contain an enforceable duty of government as to good governance, that is to say, that its decisions have to be lawful, reasonable and proportionate, and that public funds are to be spent carefully and not capriciously.

Secondly, any person or NGO may contest the validity of any law passed by parliament on the basis of human rights: today such action is granted only to persons who prove juridical, direct, personal interests in the law.

In this direction the opposition is also proposing that the ombudsman reports every year to parliament as to those recommendations that he made and which were ignored by the administration. The proposal of the opposition is to have a special debate in parliament on a report by the ombudsman on recommendations of his which were not implemented by the administration.

Our MPs are to be free to act according to their conscience. The current situation, unfortunately, is that all government backbenchers are employed by, or occupy key positions in, public entities – all of them so appointed after being elected to parliament. That is why the opposition is proposing that no MP may be appointed on boards of public authorities or engaged as consultants of any sort with such entities.

This point was made by the independent commissioner for standards in public life, incidentally appointed with the support of the two parties in parliament.

The principal permanent secretary issued a statement to the effect that the government would not be implementing this proposal because in his view there was no conflict of interest!

The Venice Commission has appealed for a reduction of the powers of the prime minister. A proposal by the opposition in this direction is that when parliament is dissolved, no recruitment or promotions in the public sector may be made and no government property may be assigned. Similarly, the current system, so abused by the current government, of bypassing proper recruitment through the PSC by appointing persons to positions of trust – ranging from chairwomen to dog-trainers – will be limited to only four persons per ministry.

Most proposals made by the government and opposition require a two-thirds majority of parliament to be approved. The government cannot continue with this charade of ignoring what the opposition is insisting upon to amend the Constitution.

The one-hour-and-45-minute press conference by the prime minister on the coronavirus, but which covered unrelated subjects such as government proposals – was intended to hijack all the prime air time available on the very day the opposition launched its proposals. If this is going to be the attitude by the powers-that-be, then the start of the constitutional reform exercise, has been anything but auspicious.

Tonio Borg is a former European Commissioner.