Why was Mark Camilleri, who is critical of the government, asked to resign but not all the others?
Alfred Sant is tying himself in knots, again. He rightly condemned the foul language used by his Marxist friend Mark Camilleri, head of the national book council. But then lambasted the “valiant defenders of civil rights” for supporting actress Pia Zammit but failing to condemn Mark Camilleri.
Sant’s outrage stemmed from the fact that those defending Zammit against harassment by it-Torċa should also have condemned the Book Council head. Instead they were on his side and wondering why Camilleri was asked to resign but not Glenn Bedingfield or Jason Micallef, two others of Sant’s friends. Sant tried to compare Camilleri with Bedingfield and Micallef but found “no way were they comparable”.
I tried to compare them too ‒ of course, they’re very different, except for their vulgarity. Camilleri uploaded an exchange with one of Yorgen Fenech’s lawyers. His argument was valid ‒ the Caruana Galizia inquiry should be allowed to work without interference to uncover the truth. But he used vulgar language.
In October 2018, MP Glenn Bedingfield also used vulgar language, not on his blog, but in the highest institution, Parliament. He was thrown out and compelled to apologise. He admitted. His excuse was “feeling emotional”.
Jason Micallef called those who criticised him for ridiculing Caruana Galizia’s last words “kenniesa”, road-sweepers. He went on to refer to ALS sufferer Bjorn Formosa “perċimes” “deserving the most disgust” (“jixraqlu l-akbar stmerrija”). Sant, however, feels Bedingfield’s and Micallef’s utterances are not comparable to Camilleri’s. True, they’re much worse.
Of course, there are countless others who have been vulgar – Joe Debono Grech used obscene language that doesn’t bear repeating; Joe Cordina, Gozo Channel chairman told a teen activist to “fuck off”, Joseph Muscat told Simon Busuttil “Imur jiehdu f’s...” (“He should bugger off”). Foul and vulgar language can never be condoned. But the point is why was Mark Camilleri, who is critical of the government, asked to resign but not all the others?
Sant labelled those making this argument hypocrites.
“If someone you dislike makes a move, just unload on him all the allegations you can put together,” Sant commented. “When someone you agree with does the same, make sure you give him full support and do not bother with niceties.”
Just a few sentences later, Sant was doing exactly that himself.
Celebrating ECJ Advocate General Gerard Hogan’s opinion on the appointment of judges, Sant declared “Robert Abela was right to criticise those interested in undermining the government of the day”.
In one sentence Sant did exactly what scandalised him. Sant clearly loathes Repubblika. He unloaded on them “all the allegations” he could put together ‒ that they are interested in undermining the government of the day. But he agrees with Robert Abela and gave him his “full support” for attacking civil society. You couldn’t make it up if you tried – but Sant sure can. He is the master of contradiction – CET not VAT, partnership not membership, partnership won.
Alfred Sant is the master of contradiction – CET not VAT, partnership not membership, partnership won
But what are Sant and the Labour Party celebrating? Repubblika brought an actio popolaris before the court, challenging the appointment of judges by the Labour government. Sixteen of the last 17 judges appointed were either relatives of Labour politicians, cronies of ministers or somehow politically intertwined, according to Judge Giovanni Bonello. Some of them lacked competence and even mandatory minimum experience.
Hogan’s opinion is that EU law does not preclude the prime minister from playing a role in the appointment procedure of judges. The prime minister’s involvement does not necessarily compromise their impartiality. As Sant echoed, politics has played a role in judges’ appointments in many member states. That doesn’t make it right.
But the advocate general also emphasised that member states are required to comply with obligations deriving from EU law. Now EU law does not impose any fixed institutional guarantees to ensure independence of judges. What is essential, however, is that judges are free from any government or parliament control.
The key part of Hogan’s opinion that Labour did not broadcast is that if the appointment of judges is so seriously defective as to create a risk that government exercises undue discretion, thereby undermining the integrity of the outcome of the appointment process, the procedure would contravene article 19(1)TEU.
The advocate general specified that if the process is so flawed that it gives rise to “a reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the independence and impartiality of the judges concerned”, then the procedure contravenes EU law.
The AG’s opinion, of course, is not binding on the Court of Justice. The judgment of the court is still awaited. But even if the court agrees with the AG’s opinion that EU law does not preclude prime ministerial involvement in the appointment process, there are other considerations. The advocate general agreed with the Venice Commission’s Opinion 940/2018 that while the constitutional amendments of 2016 were a step in the right direction, they fall short of ensuring judicial independence. Further steps are required.
Hogan stated that the Commission’s opinion reflects recommendations for a more complete system of transparency and a merit-based judicial appointment system. Put bluntly, our system is neither transparent nor merit-based. Although prime ministerial involvement in judges’ appointments may not break EU law, we could do so much better.
Wasn’t Sant himself clamouring for transparency just days ago? Wasn’t Labour pontificating about meritocracy? Hogan stated that the Venice Commission’s recommendations are “desirable” ‒ “the Maltese system does not fully meet these standards”. One news failed to report this.
So why are Sant and Abela attacking “the valiant defenders of civil rights”? All Maltese of good will surely strongly support changes that introduce transparency and meritocracy, even if EU law does not mandate it. Those supporting such measures should not be demonised by their own prime minister and former prime minister.
Sant concluded that “we live in a very small society and the hypocritical attitudes it generates are gigantic”. On this he is absolutely right.
Kevin Cassar, professor of surgery and former PN candidate