The State Advocate Bill was “anti-European” and failed to address what the former dean of the Faculty of Laws, Kevin Aquilina, called a “constitutional mess”, Nationalist MP Simon Busuttil said on Tuesday.

The Bill was heavily criticised in the House by Dr Busuttil and fellow MP Jason Azzopardi, who both reiterated the Opposition’s fundamental disagreement with the government’s failure to ensure the Attorney General and State Advocate were appointed by parliamentary consensus.

According to Dr Busuttil, the law was a “smokescreen”, which the government had only brought before the House because of pressure from European authorities.

Responding to Economy Minister Chris Cardona, who said the dual role of the Attorney General had been exercised since 1936, Dr Busuttil said this government had found an Attorney General who had been happy to bow his head and comply with the government’s wishes, contrary to his constitutional role.

The failure by Attorney General Peter Grech to do his duty or else resign was why the Opposition insisted that the role of director of public prosecutions and of legal counsel to the government be split up.

“It had been clear since Labour’s accession to power in 2013 that all institutions were at the beck and call of the Prime Minister,” Dr Busuttil said.

In particular, the Bill was inadequate because it gave the Prime Minister control over the two offices, which it would create or modify, he added. 

The role of public prosecutor merited extra assurances of autonomy or independence, for which the litmus test would ultimately be the willingness of the chosen candidate to take steps against a minister suspected of corruption. 

“Without independence, the law would weaken the rule of law instead of strengthening it,” Dr Busuttil insisted.

Dr Azzopardi called the law “a chimera”, which did nothing for the rule of law. It was “shabby”, confused concepts and contradicted established European constitutional doctrine. He attacked what he termed a “Henry 8 clause” which, he said, would allow the minister to amend the law by means of a simple legal notice.

All institutions are at the beck and call of the Prime Minister

The nomenclature “Attorney General”, he added, was normally reserved in Commonwealth countries to refer to the chief legal adviser to the Government and not to the director of public prosecutions, which the new Attorney General would be. 

He said the AG would retain the power to chair various important judicial and investigative committees and boards.

Dr Azzopardi said the government failed to establish an independent magisterial office with the power to unilaterally initiate magisterial inquiries. The existence of six different and inconsistent appointment committees, whose tasks could easily be carried out by a single committee, would also cause confusion.

He referred to a controversy surrounding apparent ministerial access to confidential portions of the Egrant inquiry.

Government MP Edward Zammit Lewis said the Opposition was factually incorrect to call for the separation of the Office of the Attorney General from the government.

For some time, the British Attorney General had attended Cabinet, he said, and the Venice Commission referred to the government’s “reasonable” wish to retain control over the appointment of the Maltese Attorney General.

The only European country where the Attorney General was appointed in the fashion being suggested by the Opposition was Hungary, Dr Zammit Lewis added.

He said magistrates and judges were appointed by a simple majority of the House and asked whether they too were seen to be partial by the Opposition.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.