On November 8, 2011, four days after abstaining in the Arriva vote, as a Nationalist MP I presented in parliament Private Members’ Motion 260, a holistic justice and constitutional reform.

With his wit but also some prophetic acumen, Mario de Marco remarked that being so far-reaching it would need 10 years to implement, while the legislature was nearing its end.

He was right. Almost 10 years down the line, it is still being implemented, with the bulk having been taken on board by the subsequent Bonello report.

Proposals such as the separation between the investigation and prosecution roles of the police, the separation between adjudicating and inquiring roles of magistrates and changes to the security service which I proposed back then have still not been implemented, notwithstanding widespread agreement over them.

A constitution is either autochthonous – that is, indigenous – like the American one and its famous preamble “We, the people”, or else granted by a foreign sovereign like the Maltese one.

Once a constitution is granted, it is very unusual for any further amendments to be also externally imposed since that would be a contradiction to its independence, which is in general an intrinsic essence of constitutions.

The constitutional reforms package I proposed included suggestions concerning judicial appointments and removals in points 11 and 12.

Those proposals were taken on board lock, stock and barrel by the Bonello report, which acknowledged in pages 39 and 40 that its proposals were based on deliberations within a parliamentary committee I conceived, proposed and later chaired together with José Herrera and Francis Zammit Dimech as members - the Recodification of Laws Committee, which had delved deeper into the issues raised by motion 260.

In 2015, parliament had then unanimously approved a substantial part of these proposals, translating them into a law currently in force. This was a radical overhaul to the preceding system and made it possible, for the first time, for all interested candidates to apply for a judicial post. Previously, even if extremely qualified, an interested candidate had no way of being considered, since everything depended on the minister’s grace.

Originating locally, these reforms were autochthonous. Unfortunately, their positive impact and effectiveness was overshadowed and diminished by the mischievous way with which the Joseph Muscat administration chose to administer them in practice. Robert Abela gives the impression of wanting to turn a fresh page and one must keep in mind that reform proposals are one thing, the willingness to implement them is another and the way they are administered in practice is yet another. The three should not be confused.

Now everyone is aware of the unfortunate and tragic circumstances in which the Venice Commission, a respected organ of the Council of Europe, was requested to make proposals about this country’s institutions two years ago, then under the Muscat administration. And that was reasonable, considering the circumstances.

An appraisal of the report cannot be done in a few paragraphs. However, in essence, the report does not contain much that is new. It is instead a collage of proposals that have originated in the Maltese parliament over the years, while on the other hand omitting to tackle issues which are probably the most pressing. One example which I had proposed in motion 260 is to reform the Malta Security Service to require interception warrants to be issued by a judicial rather than political authority.

The Venice report might be a good guide, but is not the Bible- Franco Debono

Moreover, unlike the Venice Commission Report, both motion 260 and the Bonello report not only originated from but were also tailor-made to a local reality, thus tending more towards practicality rather than the strictly academic.

This also applies to the new procedure to appoint a police commissioner, which was proposed and implemented by the government and which is more practical than the one proposed by the Venice Commission report.

The Venice report might be a good guide, but it is not the Bible.

The same applies to the Venice report’s judicial appointments proposals, which, while academically attractive, present problems in practice. Separation of powers in the parliamentary system entails checks and balances rather than watertight compartmentalisation, and the government having the final say on judicial appointments ensures a seamless and uninterrupted chain of responsibility from the government to the electorate and through parliamentary scrutiny – a chain of responsibility that should not be removed.

Benefitting from the expertise of international bodies is one thing. But having fundamental structures extensively imposed on the country by external institutions is humiliating and marred by a bitter colonial taste, especially when those proposals have a local origin.

Steering away from a colonial mentality towards a sentiment of national pride is the greatest reform that this country needs. The rest should follow.

These changes should not be an expression of a colonial mentality but, being within the same lines and spirit of both motion 260 and the Bonello report, they must be an exercise in real constitutional and intellectual independence, and a living monument to those who have paid the price, huge or small, for campaigning against corruption, in favour of transparency, accountability, the rule of law and reforms themselves, and to the direct victims of such flawed systems, which have necessitated considerable reforms in recent years.

Any changes must be autochthonous and let their preamble be along the same wavelength as “We, the People”.

Franco Debono is a lawyer and former Nationalist MP.