The Venice Commission had a word of advice for the government in its latest report on a number of constitutional amendments rushed through parliament. The citizens, it pointed out, are the true beneficiaries of such changes “and they have to be consulted if there are to be real reforms”.

Problem is, it is unclear whether the government is after “real reforms” or hasty changes to appease and appear to be meeting the demands made by international institutions. That would put in doubt whether the system of checks needed for good governance and the rule of law to prevail has truly been strengthened.

Such undue haste did not go down well with the Council of Europe’s Commission for Democracy Through Law. The government had sent 10 draft laws to the commission on June 23 and arrogantly asked it to provide  an urgent opinion by June 30. The commission would not play ball and politely replied it was willing to give its views but “would not do so by way of urgency”.

Still, the government proceeded to have six of the 10 bills approved by parliament, a move the Venice Commission regretted.

“The constitutional amendments,” it told the impatient justice minister Edward Zammit Lewis, “are meant to have a profound and long-term impact in Malta and, hence, required wide consultations within Maltese society.

“The commission emphasises the importance of a transparent, inclusive and deliberative legislative process and recommends that the remaining four bills and any further amendments be discussed in a wider framework also with civil society.”

It also pointed out that the proposed legal changes are just part of a wider reform that will also be driven by the Constitutional Convention.

“With a guided and structured dialogue opened between all stakeholders, not least civil society, the convention should look into the overall constitutional design of the country,” it remarked.

This sentiment tallies with that expressed by President George Vella in his inaugural address, when he insisted that what matters most is not what is agreed upon or put in writing but, rather, the will to observe and respect what has been agreed “in the interest of better serving our people”.

He had pledged that, throughout the constitutional reform process, there would be “close consultation with experts in the field, advice from academics, input from the political class, civil society, voluntary organisations, interested members of the public and more broadly, from all walks of life in our society”.

The president has kept his word and, now that the public consultation has been concluded, his office has compiled all the submissions received and analyses made in a comprehensive digital publication. This is another way of giving public access to what is being proposed.

What happens henceforth is just as important. The final decision on constitutional amendments will be made by MPs – unless a referendum is held – but it is crucial they fully respect the wishes of the people as distilled by the convention process. This is a question of trust and credibility.

As guardian of the constitution, the president is now called upon to ensure,  as Times of Malta had commented editorially last year, that the legal provisions to emerge from the process reflect the voice of citizens as moulded into final shape by the wise men and women entrusted with the task.

The constitution puts the people first: “Malta is a democratic republic founded on work and on respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.”

It is the people who must from now on dictate what form the constitution finally takes.