Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/265009
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2014 Opinion 20 W hen Dr Anglu Farrugia, Speaker of the House of Representatives, ruled that the motion to remove Farrugia Sacco from office presented by ex-Prime Minister Dr Lawrence Gonzi was no longer valid and that the Government had tabled a new motion for Farrugia Sacco's removal, the Commission for the Administration of Justice, on receipt of the fresh removal motion from the Speaker, had to provide the House with a fresh report. One option would have been for the Commission to reconfirm its previous report and re-submit to the House, the option that it eventually went for. A second option was to re-hear the case as the Speaker had specifically requested. A third option was to allow time for the Judge to make submissions on the Commission's first report and for the Commission to resubmit a revised report to the House. All these courses of action were possible but the Commission chose that option which ended up breaching Farrugia Sacco's right to a fair trial. e answer to the above points lies in the Constitution and in the Commission for the Administration of Justice Act. e former, in article 101A(4) (b), provides that 'a member of the Commission may abstain or be challenged in the same circumstances as a judge of the superior courts'. is means that all the members of the Commission who were originally hearing the case of Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco had to be changed because they had already made an appraisal of guilt, even if prima facie, against the Judge. In terms of article 101A(5) (b), 'where a member of the Commission has been challenged or has abstained, the President acting in accordance with his own deliberate judgment shall appoint as a substitute member to sit on the Commission, a person who in his opinion has as far as may be the same qualities and qualifications as the member substituted.' Hence, the first step that the Commission should have taken was to request the President of Malta to appoint substitute members to replace those who had already heard the case and expressed a prima facie finding of misbehaviour. Farrugia Sacco had already gone through this procedure when he unsuccessfully challenged before the Commission and the courts two members of the Commission. Now he was denied the possibility of challenging all Commission members who did not abstain and who had already expressed themselves in favour of his Farrugia Sacco – An injustice in the making? Kevin Aquilina He was denied the possibility of challenging all Commission members who did not abstain and who had already expressed themselves in favour of his misbehaviour