Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1275149
History was made last week, when Parliament unanimously approved ground- breaking reforms to strengthen good governance and Malta's institutions. Why has the Government done this? How the Government acted Malta's institutions have operated in the same manner for decades. Some were happy with the status quo and others were critical – but neither Nationalist nor Labour administrations felt the need to change how our country appoints people to key positions, what powers they exercise and their level of independence. Most took it for granted. As time went on, it became increasingly obvious that Malta would need to embark on a process of change. The European Commission for Democracy through Law, better known as the Venice Commission, published an opinion on Malta in December 2018 – following a request by the Council of Europe's Justice Assembly and the Government – highlighting what it flagged as shortcomings in Malta's system. It warned of "power imbalances" and said that "certain checks and balances were missing" particularly in relation to judicial appointments. The Venice Commission recommended: 1. That Judicial vacancies should be publicly announced, an enlarged Judicial Appointments Committee should vet and rank applicants, including for the position of Chief Justice, and the committee should propose candidates directly to the President of Malta. 2. Removal of judges and magistrates should not be in the hands of Parliament and that the Constitution be amended to provide that Constitutional Court judgments finding that a legal provision is unconstitutional should result directly in the annulment of that provision. 3. Elimination of the dual role of the Attorney General, establishing instead an office of an independent Director of Public Prosecutions or Prosecutor General or Public Prosecutor. 4. That the President of Malta should be granted broader powers to act without the advice of the Prime Minister and possibly be elected by qualified majority. 5. MPs' salaries should be increased to allow them to focus on parliamentary work. Judicial vacancies should be publicly announced, an enlarged Judicial Appointments Committee should vet and rank applicants, including for the position of Chief Justice, and the committee should propose candidates directly to the President of Malta. 6. The Prime Minister's powers of appointment regarding independent commissions and permanent secretaries should be curtailed and that appointments to positions of trust should be strictly limited. The Commission concluded: "As with any reform, it is obvious that not only the texts matter – but also their implementation in good faith." Prime Minister Robert Abela made this reform a priority as soon as he assumed office. So, a process of internal discussion and extensive consultation with experts, the Opposition and civil society began. Naturally, while the Government agreed with many of the Venice Commission's proposals, it had to debate their validity within the local socio- political context and implement amendments that respected Malta's long-standing legal traditions. Two changes were deemed urgent and needed to be implemented immediately: • The first was restricting the duties of the Attorney General, Malta's state prosecutor, who is no longer be responsible for advising the government on constitutional matters. Government has now entrusted this role to the newly-created position of state advocate, Victoria Buttigieg, who was unanimously recommended by the Appointments Commission. • It was also necessary to appoint the highly respected Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti as Chief Justice, following agreement with the Opposition, since his predecessor had reached retirement age. Meanwhile, the Government continued to draft six Acts: The President's Act, Judicial Appointment's Act, Judicial Discipline and Removal Act, the PCAC Act, and Acts to amend laws regulating the Office of the Ombudsman and the Attorney General. These were unanimously approved by both sides of the House of Representatives last week.