A bill, which would remove parliament's power to impeach magistrates and judges, is being debated.
Instead of the current two-thirds parliamentary majority required, the government is proposing that the decision rests solely on the Commission for the Administration of Justice.
According to the opposition, the judiciary is opposed to the proposed change, and it wants to know why.
The reform is one of 10 bills meant to implement the recommendations of a group of rule of law experts of the Council of Europe, known as the Venice Commission. The government is aiming to have these constitutional changes approved by parliament by the start of the summer recess at the end of this month. However, they cannot come into force unless the opposition is also on board.
Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis said the reform was crucial in terms of increasing the accountability of the judiciary.
“Who is judging the judges?” he asked.
Under this proposal, cases of disciplinary action will be dealt with by the Commission for the Administration of Justice of which four out of the seven members will be from the judiciary itself.
Zammit Lewis said the bill was in line with the Venice Commission recommendations, and consequently could not foresee any grounds for objections.
Judiciary against the move
However, in his reaction, PN MP Chris Said said the opposition had questions about the proposal to completely eliminate the House from the impeachment process.
“We are informed that the judiciary is against such a move and before taking a decision the opposition would like to know what these objections are,” Said remarked.
He said both models had their pros and cons, while noting that under the existing model all attempts for impeachment had failed even when there were clear grounds for removing a judge or magistrate.
The MP also said it made no sense to remove the attorney general and the state advocate by a two-thirds parliamentary majority and leave the door open for the possibility to appoint them by a simple absolute majority.
PN MP Carm Mifsud Bonnici said the model could give rise to an increase in legal challenges by members of the judiciary to the Constitutional Court.
'Opposition against Venice Commission'
In his winding up speech, the minister said he was baffled how the opposition would be voting against the Venice Commission proposal. He said there was a landmark European Court of Human Rights judgment (Volkov vs Ukraine) supporting the need of the reform being piloted by the government.
Oleksandr Volkov was dismissed from his post as a Supreme Court judge in May 2010 by the Ukrainian parliament due to an alleged “breach of oath”. The court found violations of the right to a fair trial and respect for private life and ordered Ukraine to reinstate him immediately as a Supreme Court judge, the first time the court gave such an order.
“If we do not make the necessary changes we might find ourselves in hot water in the near future, due to the possibility of a legal challenge,” he said.
However, he confirmed that the judiciary was not in agreement with the bill.
Zammit Lewis pointed out the Venice Commission never said that both the attorney general and the state advocate would have security of tenure as they would need a two-thirds majority to be removed.