Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/934206
maltatoday WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY 2018 News MATTHEW AGIUS THE Constitutional Court has con- firmed a ruling which held that a per- son facing criminal proceedings has a right to silence when testifying before a parliamentary committee. Any ruling or guideline to the con- trary would be in breach of funda- mental rights. The pronouncement was made in an appeal judgment concerning Frank Sammut, who was implicated in the Enemalta oil procurement scandal and who had been called to testify be- fore the Public Accounts Committee while proceedings against him were still ongoing. The First Hall of the Civil Court had upheld the argument, made by the three persons charged, that they cannot be compelled to testify before the Public Accounts Committee due to the ongoing criminal proceedings against them. Frank Sammut, Francis Portelli and Anthony Cassar had asked the first hall of the civil court in its Constitu- tional jurisdiction to declare the re- quest that they testify before the Pub- lic Accounts Committee, as well as the Speaker's 2014 ruling on the mat- ter breached his right to a fair hear- ing. They had also asked the court to declare the same with regards to the official Guide for Witnesses appear- ing before the Public Accounts Com- mittee. Since any deposition on his part could result in self-incrimination, Sammut had refused to appear before the parliamentary committee, leading to a ruling in February 2014 stating that the Speaker was to have the final say in determining whether any ques- tion which the witness "preferred" not to testify was incriminating or not. The rules of procedure catered for punitive sanctions in respect of any witness who chose to exercise his fundamental right to silence so as to avoid self-incrimination. The Speaker of the House Anglu Far- rugia had ruled that they were obliged to testify and that if a question that could possibly incriminate them was made, the Public Accounts Committee was to refer it to the Speaker to decide on whether it was permissible or not. Moreover, the rules of procedure went so far as to envisage punitive sanctions in respect of any witness who chose to exercise his fundamen- tal right to silence so as to avoid self- incrimination. In a judgment handed down last Feb- ruary Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon had described the ruling as a breach of the right to silence, making it clear that they had the right to silence and that any action taken against them for not testifying before the Public Ac- counts Committee would be a breach of their rights. The House of Representatives and the Public Accounts Committee had appealed the judgment of the First Hall. In a judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court, presided over by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri and Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Noel Cuschieri, the court reaf- firmed the supremacy of the right to silence, declaring that both the Guide for Witnesses and the Speaker's Rul- ing were not applicable in respect of Sammut in view of the ongoing crimi- nal proceedings in his regard. Lawyer Joe Giglio was counsel to Sammut. MASSIMO COSTA DISCUSSIONS to lower the voting age for general elections and European Parliament elections started in Par- liament on Monday. 'Vote16', the Bill proposing the con- stitutional amendments for a lower voting age, is expected to go through, with all political parties agreeing that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the right to vote MaltaToday asked students out- side the Junior College and the main MCAST campus what they thought of being given the chance to vote be- fore they reached 18. Interestingly, some students we spoke to showed some concern on whether 16-year-olds were mature enough to vote wisely. "I don't think it's a very good idea," a student said, "At 16 one doesn't re- ally know much about politics. At 18 people might be more affected by what goes on in politics, especially since there is a greater chance they are working and paying taxes." "I'm not sure all 16-year-olds are interested in politics," another told us, "Some young people might not be mature enough and might only take into consideration things which af- fect them personally, when it comes to voting. I think the voting age should stay at 18 - at the age a person has a greater likelihood of making a mature and informed decision." A more politically-oriented student offered an opposing view, saying that she followed politics and was inter- ested in political matters. "I agree with the lowering of the voting age - at 16 you form an im- portant part of society. I would have liked to have been able to vote in the 2017 election, because I was able to understand what was going on, and it would have been good if I could have voted for the person I thought would make the best Prime Minister," she said. A somewhat middle-of-the-road view was expressed by another stu- dent, who said that while he didn't think giving 16-year-olds the right to vote was necessarily a bad idea, maturity could possibly be an issue. "Some 16-year-olds are mature, others aren't. This will have a bear- ing on the way they vote," he main- tained. A number of students we tried to speak to told us they preferred not to comment, since they had not been following, and were not interested in the current voting age developments. mcosta@mediatoday.com.mt Constitutional Court overrules Speaker on oil scandal decision Vote16: Young people's views Young people we spoke to were divided between those who felt 16 and 17-year-olds might not be mature enough to vote wisely, and those who said they would appreciate having a political say Constitutional Court rules that a person facing criminal proceedings has a right to silence when testifying before a parliamentary committee