Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1545479
The following are excerpts from the interview. The full interview can be found on maltatoday. com.mt as well as our Facebook and Spotify pages. PHOTOS: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTA TODAY 5 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 21 JUNE 2026 INTERVIEW Let me take you back to before the 2013 general election when you had resigned from Labour Party deputy leader. Are you still pained by what had happened? The pain is there but over time… don't forget it [the resignation] was the result of a court case I had piloted on my own regarding corrupt practices in the aftermath of the 2008 election. It is in my character not to give up even if I am on my own. After the case, I had passed some comments about the judiciary—I had never mentioned the person by name, but let me stop at that. But time has proved me right and shown me that a person should never refrain from calling out wrongdoing, whatever the suffering one may go through. Not everyone does so but that is the message [I get from my experience]. Since then, I am happy to have passed through experiences that did hurt me… but along the years, we did good for Maltese society. Let us roll forward to your time as Speaker. There were many times, especially during the past few years when you were criticised by the Opposi- tion of being in collusion with the government on several rulings you gave. When you look back, were there any decisions that you believe you could have taken differently in light of this criticism, or is it a question of having no regrets? Absolutely [not]. Every ruling I gave was studied. I dedicated a lot of time to understand the facts, because anybody can put forward a narrative but a ruling is a decision based on procedure, applicable laws and facts. I gave around 300 rulings. Every MP has a right to dispute a ruling by appealing it. None were appealed and it is not because Anglu Farrugia caused anyone to fear doing so; they were not contested because the decisions were [correct]. There was nothing to prevent members of the Opposition, or the government for that matter because I also had strong rulings against government ministers and authorities, from contesting them… My conscience is clean and there is nothing that bothers me about any of the rulings I gave. Most of the controversies con- cerned Opposition requests for the parliamentary agenda to be suspended and instead hold an urgent debate related to something of national impor- tance that would have hap- pened. Shouldn't the Opposi- tion have the right to be given an urgent debate when it asks for it? When an urgent debate is requested and parliament's agenda is suspended under Article 13 of the Standing Orders, there are conditions that need to be met… more importantly, are constitutional rulings and judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights that stipulate if there is a pending [court] case or a person is being investigated with the potential of having criminal charges filed against them, and an MP asks for a debate, like had happened when drugs were stolen from the army barracks, I cannot uphold such a request. I will be breaching the involved persons' human rights by allowing a debate with no control to take place [in parliament] and one where the person cannot defend themselves… In all my rulings I have listed the legal reasons why the requests were turned down. None of the rulings in these cases were appealed. I can understand the political narrative that is created; I was involved in politics. But when it comes to concrete matters, we have to talk on rights, law, procedure, what previous rulings stated on similar issues… I can understand a situation of not allowing a debate to take place when it involves some- one undergoing legal proceed- ings or is being investigated. But there is also the issue of discussing political respon- sibility. Take the army drugs case, the political responsibil- ity of the concerned minister was not something criminal procedures would have delved into. But you have to be careful, and this was established by several previous rulings, including those of the House of Commons [in the UK]—if the debate is so intense that it can spiral out of control, it would be too late to remedy the situation. The damage would have been done just the same. The discussion about the minister could easily spiral out of control. You delivered several rulings on complaints over the lack of replies given by ministers to parliamentary questions, or replies that do not adequately answer the question asked. In your rulings you always em- phasised that the Speaker has no right to determine what the replies should be. Can minis- ters do as they please despite being obliged to answer par- liamentary questions? No, they cannot do as they please. We adopt the procedure of the House of Commons and the Speaker has no right to interfere with a minister's reply. But I went one step further and ruled that whenever the prime minister or a minister is referring to a document, even if just quoting a sentence from it, the minister is obliged to table the whole document in parliament… There are several rulings concerning ministers who either failed to reply to a question or did not reply fully, and I stated that something must be done by the two sides of parliament to revisit the Standing Orders. The model used by Canada, which I cited in my rulings, allows an MP to ask for a minister's reply to be queried by a parliamentary committee presided by the Speaker, if it is deemed insufficient… Do you believe the time has come for greater transparency on income and asset decla- rations by MPs and ministers and their partners, by making these declarations available online for wider public scruti- ny? I suggested this in one of my Sette Giugnio speeches by making reference to OECD reports on the matter… today, the Commissioner for Public Standards has the power to investigate but to do so they need to have the facts in hand, which is why the declaration of assets is important. Before parliament was dissolved, we had a bill that was tabled and received unanimous backing at First Reading stage. Now, it's pleasures yet to come for the new legislature. But this is not only a question of transparency but also ac- cessibility… These declarations should be available online for scrutiny by journalists and members of the public… Should the Speaker be ap- pointed by a two-thirds vote in parliament? It would be dangerous… if they cannot agree on a two-thirds majority, democracy in this country is jammed. No country in the Commonwealth has such a system. The party in government has a right to choose the Speaker… What advice do you give [your successor] Carmelo Abela? My advice to him is where he is unsure of something, he should stop and think and seek advice, and when giving a ruling, it should be unconditioned. What will you be doing now? I will not stop and I will surely continue writing. For sure, if the country calls on me to offer a service, I will do my part. I will certainly not return back to politics though.