Category: Constitutional Development

Categories
Constitutional Development

George fought the law and Adrian won

PR 201337 – “Press Release from the Office of the President” does not feature on the DOI Press Release page. It should be there since PR 201336 and PR 201338 are both on the page. I tried to find out whether the President’s Office that has its own PRO had distributed the PR through the DOI. Unfortunately Caroline Muscat, theShiftNews editor, could not confirm because – get this – the DOI refuses to add theShiftNews to the newsroom list.

Why does the President (and for what matters, even the Speaker of the House) use the DOI for his PR? Shouldn’t they have their own PR office issuing its own press releases? But those are not the glitches in our democracy that we are here to comment today. We are more concerned with the content of the PR 201337 because it concerns the long-awaited disquisition by the President (upon advice of anonymous legal experts) concerning the issue of the Leader of the Opposition in the House (LOOH for short).

Let us begin from the end. At the end of his statement, the President invokes the Principle of Necessity as the underlying reason for his decision. The beauty of the use of this principle is that it sets the minds at rest of all those who disagree with the interpretation favoured by the President and his men (and Adrian Delia of course). Why so? Well the reason is simple. The Principle of Necessity is used as a last resort in the words of the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton “when that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity”.

In layman’s terms the President is saying that he is conscious of the unlawfulness of his decision and interpretation but a higher necessity required him to rule in such a manner anyway. It would be facile to blame the President’s medical background but that would mean ignoring the legal savants who deemed this perilous advice to be good enough for him to administer on the nation.

Said advisors skimmed through Article 90’s inherent contradictions and in lieu of providing a solution based on law, they chose to apply the aforementioned Doctrine of Necessity: an unlawful solution in the better interests of… There lies the crux… the better interests of whom? In the words of the President this would be the “protection of the democratic process and the serene atmosphere which must reign in Parliament and in the country in general”.

In opting for this doctrine the President’s advisors steamrollered over any consideration concerning article 90 other than the admission that a combined reading of 90(4) and 90(2) could result in revoking and appointing Adrian Delia ad infinitum. Having discarded the possibility of leaving the LOOH office vacant (there will be a LOOH according to article 90 has been read as there will be one at all times) the solution was simple: we keep him there because it is a remedy for serenity.

The ball was then thrown into the political party court (from whence it came) with the President washing his hands of the problem and saying “come back when you have a new leader of the party or when you have solved your trust issues”.

Which begs the question. How serene and progressive is our parliamentary democracy when a President reads the constitution (unlawfully by his own admission) in such a way as to impose a LOOH on the opposition who has lost the trust of 2/3 of them?

The press pounced on the words ‘depart from the constitution’ when reporting the President’s Press Release. It’s worse. He openly broke it. “That which is otherwise not lawful” remember?

George Vella fought the law and Adrian Delia has won. Time to quote Swift again…

“It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of decreeing accordingly.”

– Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels
Categories
Constitutional Development

Delia’s Crazy Catch 22

It’s a crazy cycle in Maltese political and legal life but every now and then a public exponent decides to unearth his own version of Joseph Heller’s Catch 22. The latest to jump on the bandwagon is none other than the Dar Centrali resident-in-chief Adrian Delia.

Fresh from his visit to dithering President George Vella, he announced ad urbi et orbi from his bedside table, erm, podium at Dar Centrali that he is still Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Party. He then proceeded to issue a thinly veiled challenge to the Rebel MPs (it’s a moniker that stuck). When they go to the President for their individual confession they would do well to bear in mind that should they succeed in getting his position revoked the next step would be his reappointment as Leader of the Opposition.

Yes, you read that right. As a strategy it is utter genius. It plays on ignorance of the law of the worst kind. The kind that might even convince a hesitant President not to do the right thing. What Delia is saying is that sure enough article 90(4) should lead to his revocation if all the conditions fall in place (as they did after that fateful vote) but we then need to appoint a new leader of Opposition in Parliament.

And what does the article on appointment (90(4)) say if not that the Leader of the Party in Opposition should be appointed Leader of the Opposition in the house. Logical no? Delia wants to trigger a Catch 22 loop simply to be able to force the MPs to challenge him in his home turf. Dar it-Tesserati.

Sadly for Delia the law is not an ass unless it is read/interpreted by one. This literal interpretation cannot and should not function. If the Party Leader no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority of MPs then he will not be reappointed. Not unless George Vella falls for the Catch 22. The President will then fall on that member who enjoys the confidence of the majority. And that, my friends, is definitely not the Dar Centrali resident.

“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

Catch 22 , Joseph Heller
Categories
Constitutional Development

The Constitutional Matters (I)

As Malta braces itself for an invasion of constitutional experts I thought it would be opportune to throw my hat in the ring with a short series of Constitutional posts related directly or indirectly to what is happening at the moment.

The matter of who is the de iure and de facto Leader of the Opposition is the current hot potato just as the hapless Delia has lost a vote of confidence among the nationalist MPs. That vote confirmed that Delia no longer ‘commands the support of the largest single group of members of the House in opposition to the Government who are prepared to support one leader’. The words in quote are taken from article 90(2)(b) of the Constitution and as we shall see they are part of a conundrum relating to the appointment, tenure and removal of the Leader of the Opposition under our Constitution.

I say conundrum with intent. The whole of article 90 presents us with a series of alternative situations that should they occur would lead to the appointment or removal of a Leader of the Opposition.

Appointment

Unlike in the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister, political parties are mentioned when it comes to the choice of Leader of Opposition. Article 80 concerning the appointment of the Prime Minister in fact refers to the member ‘best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House’. Article 90 on the other hand is the only article in the constitution to refer to the leader of a political party.

So, insofar as the appointment of the leader of the opposition is concerned, the first option for the President (article 90(2)(a)) is triggered if there is one opposition party whose numerical strength is greater than any other opposition party (in our case PN is larger than PD). In such a case the President will appoint the leader of that party as Leader of the Opposition.

In the hypothetical situation that no one opposition party is larger than the other (equal number of MPs) or there is no opposition party (all MPs are independent in opposition) then the President has to look for the person who commands the support of the largest group of members in the opposition. In this case no reference is made to party leadership. (article 90 (2)(b)).

Vacancy

Article 90(3) gives us all the options when the office of the Leader of the Opposition becomes vacant. The obvious reasons are when there has just been an election (dissolution of parliament) or if the leader of the opposition has ceased to be a member of the House. There is a final option which is covered by Article 90(4) which covers revocation of his appointment,

Revocation

If , in the judgment of the President, a member of the House of Representatives other than the Leader of the Opposition, has become the Leader in the House of the opposition party having the greatest numerical strength in the House or, as the case may be, the Leader of the Opposition has ceased to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition to the Government, the President shall revoke the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.

Article 90(4), Constitution of Malta

This sub-article really provides two alternatives. First of all we have the situation where the Leader of the Opposition is replaced as leader of his own party. Presumably this would mean that there has been a move within the party and the Leader was voted out with a new one voted in. That automatically triggers a change in the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

The second, more delicate, alternative occurs where the Leader of the Opposition ceases to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition. No more talk of political parties here. The measure is clear – if the Leader of the Opposition no longer enjoys the confidence of a majority among the opposition members then the President must revoke his appointment.

Now the vote of confidence taken at PN HQ is clear. Of the 30 PN MPs 19 voted against Delia (17 of these are MPs, 2 (Metsola and Casa) are MEPs). 10 voted in his favour (and Delia himself). We do not even need to factor in the two other Opposition MPs from the third party (PD) because that still leaves Delia in a minority. There should be no way out constitutionally for Delia.

The Presidents’ prerogative is qualified with the words “in his judgment” though I doubt if George Vella can come up with a plausible reason to deny all evidence pointing to the obvious. Delia no longer commands the confidence of a majority of opposition MPs. His appointment to Leader of Opposition should be revoked.

Political Party Leadership

Delia is pandering to the harridans and populists with his calls to respect the vote of the tesserati. He is using that excuse to cling to his position as Leader of the Opposition. As we have seen though the two posts are not linked directly. Rather, that vote of confidence has effectively ended Delia’s tenure as Leader of the Opposition both de iure and de facto. What remains to be done is for George Vella to snap out of “standby” mode and revoke his appointment.

For the time being Delia can cling to the leadership of the party with desperate claws. It would not be the first time that he prioritises his own aims over the needs of a nation and of his own party. Meanwhile the ‘rebel MPs’ need to get going. There is a constitutional role that needs filling. Finding one among them to fulfill the duties of leader of Opposition should not take too long. Also, if the President drags his feet any longer on the revocation they might need to up their ante by walking up to his door and presenting their chosen candidate.

And the UK

Interestingly enough our former colonial overlords who bequeathed upon us a particular form of parliamentary democracy have a peculiar way of identifying the Leader of the Opposition. It is not the Queen (in lieu of our President) who determines the leader but the Speaker of the House – and this only in case of dispute. The accepted choice is normally, as in Malta, the Leader of the largest party in Opposition. However under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (1975), we find the following provision:


(1) In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons; and “Chief Opposition Whip” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, the person for the time being nominated as such by the Leader of the Opposition in that House; and “Assistant Opposition Whip”, in relation to the House of Commons, means a person for the time being nominated as such, and to be paid as such, by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.

(2) If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.

Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (1975), Article 2

Categories
Constitutional Development Corruption Panamagate

We ain’t seen nothing yet

One by one they walked out of Mile End HQ with that pathetic smile that convinces only themselves and the diehard faithfuls that all is well in the State of Labour. No comments to the assembled press though, at least not until PM Abela walked out of the glass door of the infamous Dar it-Trasparenza. Abela was, rightly, the one to face the music and give some kind of rendition of what had gone in the meeting.

Good news first. Mizzi has been voted out of the Labour Party. The man who has been unfit for purpose since at least the Panama Papers revelations is finally party-less and has been left to fend for his sorry self (while still in quarantine).

In other news, Abela is still playing to the circus that voted his party back into power notwithstanding the fact that many of the what he calls ‘allegations’ were known to them in 2017. The accolytes gathered around him for moral support included such luminaries as Edward Zammit Lewis and Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi and they were there to applaud and yell their support to make whatever happened that moment look and sound like a resounding victory.

Pressed and cornered to take a position about Joseph Muscat, Abela writhed and squirmed trying hard to build a case for not having ditched il-Kink along with the rest of the ballast. The biggest problem that Abela had was the elephant in the room : he could not say that Muscat deserved being ditched by Labour for the enormous responsibility that he has carried at the very least for standing by the Mizzi and Schembri Roadshow from the start.

He tried. He did say that had he been in Muscat’s place in 2016 he would have ditched Mizzi immediately. But Muscat’s responsibility goes further than that. It is a continuing responsibility borne by the fact that he stood square behind Mizzi and Schembri until yesterday. And here comes the elephant… that responsibility is carried by each and every member of the Labour governments who have stood square behind Muscat’s line of defences.

These are the Labour government and members who accused investigators and civil society of being traitors of the nation. They are the same members who backed Mizzi’s corrupt deals to a hilt. They are still unable to bring themselves to commit on a revision of every single contract and deal in which Mizzi was involved.

Abela today tried to get cheers for a non-achievement. His distraction biscuit today was that we would not be going to the polls any time soon (cue cheers and cries from the rent-a-crowd). The cries came from people who are just as tainted and just as mixed-up in this mess. As long as the collective responsibility for our nation’s current predicament is not borne then we continue living a lie.

As a friend of mine rightly noted earlier tonight: “Daphne Caruana Galizia would have still been alive today, had it not taken you ages to decide. Had our institutions been truly independent and allowed to function.”

That, Robert, is the reason we cannot have accolades and triumphalisms. You might convince yourself and your roadies that tonight’s vote is some big cut off moment. As far as we are concerned, we literally ain’t seen nothing yet.

photo: M. Mirabelli

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch

Rajna f’Idejna

Writing in today’s Times of Malta controversial ex-politician Franco Debono discusses recent happenings in the field of constitutional reform. The article titled “The reforms we implement should be our own” concerns what Franco calls “the colonial mentality of having reforms imposed”. Constitutions and constitutional reforms must be autochthonous Debono tells us and not granted by a foreign sovereign.

What interests me today is the basic premise of Debono’s argument: that we are having reforms imposed on us by some foreign power or authority much in the same way we depended on sovereigns granting us constitutions in the past.

In simple terms, what Debono is advocating here is that any changes to our constitution must not be imposed from the outside but must come from within the country (“We the people”, presumably through the able hands of our representatives and their advisors). There is very little to criticize here: the sovereign constitutional power resides with the people who delegate their representatives (and specialists) to give legal shape to that power.

Debono does not stop there. He speaks of what he calls ‘the unfortunate and tragic circumstances in which the Venice Commission, a respected organ of the Council of Europe, was requested to make proposals about this country’s institutions two years ago”. After outlining what he terms the Commission’s ‘proposals’ he states the following:

Benefitting from the expertise of international bodies is one thing. But having fundamental structures extensively imposed on the country by external institutions is humiliating and marred by a bitter colonial taste, especially when those proposals have a local origin. Steering away from a colonial mentality towards a sentiment of national pride is the greatest reform that this country needs. The rest should follow.

The reforms we implement should be our own – Franco Debono

This is where Debono’s original premise falls flat. The implication is that the Venice Commission is imposing content on Malta, and that somehow the constitution of Malta has slipped from the sovereign hands of the people into the hands of foreign writers. M’ghadniex rajna f’idejna (we no longer have the reigns of our country in our hands). This jingoistic, nationalistic nerve that Debono is tapping fits conveniently in the current narrative of misplaced patriotism and anti-European sentiment.

The assertion of any imposition of the actual rules and laws and structures is false. This argument can be extended not only to the Venice Commission (an institution within the Council of Europe) but also to the Commission and Court of Justice of the European Union (institutions of the EU), both of which may be tasked to review the conformity of Malta’s laws and regulations with the rule of law.

Debono is ignoring the fact that such institutions are tasked with checking the standards of our laws and not their content. Every member state of the Council of Europe and European Union remains the sovereign master of its legal system. Member states are free to alter and draft their own laws as they deem fit but such laws are tested against standards which the very same member states have agreed to in their full, sovereign membership of international communities.

Think of this as a VRT test. You are free to purchase any car you choose and can tweak it to your liking so long as it conforms with the agreed standards for roadworthiness. A VRT tester does not impose a car on you but makes sure that your car is up to the standards everyone agrees to.

The Venice Commission will look at any suggested reform which the Maltese state makes. It will do so using a standard measure that is the rule of law. Should any of the measures fail to fit that standard the Venice Commission will make that known. The same goes for potential cases before the ECJ. As the Polish government found out recently, every Stateis free to change its system of appointment of judiciary – so long as that system guarantees an observance of the basic tenets of the rule of law.

Being held to certain standards is not the same as being forced to accept laws that are not ours. The standards are standards established for our own good and which we, as a sovereign nation member of international communities, adhered to. Our laws must be safe. Safe for us, the citizens who abide by them.

At the heart of such standards is the interest of “We the people” who are protected by their application. Far from being an imposition, it is an international guideline of democratic standards that we are being asked to conform to.

Given what Franco calls the “unfortunate and tragic circumstances” into which our country was dragged, the fact that the abusers of our constitution and law for so long are now being set to a higher standard when tinkering with the laws is a small but worthy consolation.

The only colonial mentality of submission would be to allow those who have held our constitutional rights hostage for too long in the name of a party duopoly to dupe us into thinking that conforming to the right standards is some blow to our national pride.

Categories
Constitutional Development Rule of Law

Vigil: justice for Daphne

Credit: Paul Borg Olivier

Speech delivered at Vigil for Justice for Daphne. 16th November 2019.

First, Let’s Kill All the Lawyers. L-ewwel ma nagħmlu, ejja noqtolu l-avukati kollha. Xi ħsieb dak eh? Ħsieb li jxewwex il-massa. Huwa ħsieb li jmiss xi ħaġa fil-fond ta’ kull wieħed u waħda minnkom, anki jekk forsi ma tkunux lesti tammettu. X’qed ngħid? Probabbli daż-żmien ħadd ma jiddejjaq jgħidu. Daphne Caruana Galizia wkoll forsi kellha xi ħsibijiet koroh dwar l-avukati f’xi mument… imbagħad iżżewġet wieħed… mur obsor …

L-ewwel ma nagħmlu, ejja noqtolu l-avukati kollha. Dik il-frażi taslilna dritt minn triloġija ta- drammi ta’ Shakespeare dwar l-ġlieda għall-poter fi żminijiet diffiċli ħafna fir-renju tal-Ingilterra – qisu Brexit imma fil-passat. Il-mument li fih titlissen dik il-frażi jiġi hekk kif persunaġġ li jismu Jack Cade qiegħed ixewwex folla ta’ nies komuni kontra min qiegħed fil-poter. Mument populista.

Cade qed iwiegħed ikel irħas u birra irħas. Ikompli jwiegħed li ’l quddiem ma jkunx hemm bżonn flus, kulħadd jiekol u jixrob kif irid u kulħadd jilbes tajjeb. Lanqas jilħaq jispiċċa jwiegħed dan kollu li mill-folla ma tqumx l-għajta :  “L-ewwel ma nagħmlu, ejja noqtlu l-avukati kollha.”

Shakespeare kien jaf li b’dan il-vers kienu se jogħxew ħafna nies.U hekk hu. Is-sentiment li jesprimi ma huwiex sempliċement wieħed kontra l-avukati iżda kontra l-istruttura legali sħiħa illi fuqha tiddependi u topera s-soċjetà sħiħa. Il-poplu ribelluż, imxewwex minn dak li jixtieq isir Re bil-wegħda ta’ status aħjar ma jirrifjutax il-possibbiltà li jinjora obbligi, li jivvjola wegħdiet u li jikser ir-regoli.

Cade jirkeb id-dagħdigħa tal-mument u jsejjaħ lill-massa biex tkisser l-iskejjel tal-liġi u l-qrati. Minn issa ‘l quddiem il-liġijiet isiru kollha minnu u minnu biss. Cade huwa l-eroj tal-mument. Is-segwaċi tiegħu lesti jaċċettaw sistema li trendi r-rappreżentanza istituzzjonali inutli – lesti jkissru sistema sħiħa. Kollha kemm huma jafu li Cade huwa giddieb magħruf imma lesti jagħzlu l-ħolma-wiegħda tiegħu fuq kollox: “Henceforward all things shall be in common.” L-Ingilterra Tagħna Lkoll.

Cade jgħid lill-marmalja ta’ quddiemu li l-għadu huma l-litterati u l-għorriefa. Ma jdumux ma jixxewxu biex jgħallqu skriba “bil-pinna u l-klamar m’għonqu”. It-tradituri tal-kawża kollha għandhom jinġabu quddiem il-ġustizzja tal-marmalja.

Nista’ nkompli b’iktar eżempji minn dal-kapulavur storiku. Li rridu nifhmu hu li Shakespeare, li kien qed jikteb fi żmien meta stejjer dwar ribelljoni kienu ċċensurati bil-kbir, qed jikxef l-elementi taż-żelqa lejn it-tirannija.

Shakespeare qed iwissi dwar dawn is-sejħiet biex jitfarrku l-ġustizzja u l-għarfien. Twissija li tapplika ghal dawn iż-żmienijiet ukoll. Qiegħdin hawn għal darb’oħra fuq kollox sabiex infakkru kittieba, ħaddiema tal-kelma li sfat suġġett ta’ ordni moqżież : mhux li titgħallaq bil-pinna u l-klamar ma għonqha imma biex iġġarraf splużjoni b’mod barbariku.

Dik l-ordni ġiet fi żmien meta l-battalja kontra l-ġustizzja, kontra l-loġika u kontra r-raġuni kienet ġa bdiet. M’hemm l-ebda dubju – Daphne Caruana Galizia hija l-vittma tax-xewwiexa li qarrqu bin-nies bl-illużjoni ta’ ħajja aħjar, li wasslu biex inkonxjament jiġi injorat it-tkissir tas-sistema, li biegħu il-gidba li dan huwa L-Aqwa Żmien.

Is-sinjali ta’ twissija kienu ilhom hemm. Imma spjegazzjonijiet tekniċi dwar it-tkissir tas-Saltna tad-Dritt – ma jistgħu xejn kontra mewġa fuq mewġa ta’ populiżmu u demagoġija.

Xogħol Daphne kien jifforma parti minn makkinarju ikbar ta’ xogħol impekkabbli magħmul minn mewġa ġdida ta’ ġurnalisti u investigaturi – moviment ġdid kontra l-korruzzjoni fid-dinja, fl-Ewropa u f’pajjiżna.

L-istituzzjonijiet tagħna nħatfu. In-nies għadhom f’qagħda lluppjata ta’ aċċettazzjoni. Għadha ma nqalbitx il-folja. L-isfida li niffaċċjaw illum huwa li nkomplu nipperseveraw u nseddqu l-veritajiet li nies bħal Daphne kienu qalbiena biżżejjed li jikxfu. Hekk kif iktar nies jifhmu bil-qerq il-kbir li tagħha huma l-vittmi, iktar ma tikber ir-rabja għall-bidla.

Sentejn wara l-fatt, irridu naċċettaw ir-realtà patetika li dan l-assassinju ma kienx atroċità kbira biżżejjed li ssarraf f’azzjoni konkreta reali mill-poplu. Irridu naċċettaw il-verità qarsa li anki jekk rajna l-istituzzjonijiet jinħatfu wieħed wieħed, anki jekk rajna ir-rappreżentanza titmermer u titniġġeż mill-kilba partiġġjana, anki jekk rajna lill-għassiesa tagħna nnewtralizzati, dan kollu għadu ma kienx biżżejjed biex ikebbes nar ta’ moviment ta’ bidla.

L-irjus koroh tad-dubju u tan-nuqqas ta’ fidi fil-proxxmu jqumu kull meta forsi kien hemm ħjiel ta’ bidu ta’ bidla. Dak l-istess dubju u nuqqas ta’ fidi jkissru u jifframmentaw l-ilħna tal-bidla u jsaħħu lill-użurpaturi tal-poter.

Imma. Nixtieq inwassal aħbar tajba lil din il-velja. Nixtieq ngħid li l-movimenti taċ-ċittadini mgħaddba għall-istupru tal-ambjent u għall-abbuż tal-awtoritajiet tal-ippjanar, li il-kuxjenza dejjem tikber dwar differenzi kbar soċjal-ekonomiċi – huma sinjal li r-riħ qed iqum.

Nixtieq nenfasizza li minkejja li għad hawn politikanti lesti jixorbu mill-ilma mdardar tar-razziżmu, xenophobija u mibgħeda għall-barrani – hawn ukoll min lest jieqfilhom. Irrid nenfasizza dawn l-aspirazzjonijiet ġodda għal Malta verament Ewropea li taspira tkun parti mill-bidla kontinentali għal futur aħjar.

Dan kollu minkejja – u mhux grazzi għal – ħafna minn dawk li suppost jirrapreżentawna. In-nies qed tfittex vuċi ġdida, bidu ġdid li jwarrab stili qodma u li jwassal proġett ġdid għall-ġid komuni taċ-ċittadini. Il-mara li xogħlha nikkomemoraw illum ħadmet ħafna biex tikxef il-veritajiet li huma neċessarji f’din il-ġlieda. Tagħha ma kenitx qlubija fiergħa. Kif qal Peter, ir-raġel tagħha:

« Il-Qlubija waħedha ftit għandha valur jekk ma għandhiex skop. Mingħajr sens ta’ ġustizzja. »

Illum niltaqgħu biex naqtgħu ras il-mostri tad-dubju u nuqqas ta’ fidi. Niltaqgħu hawn biex inkebbsu dak is-sens ta’ skop. Niltaqgħu hawn biex nikkonfermaw li nemmnu f’socjetà ġusta. Niltaqgħu hawn biex nikkommettu ruħna għat-tfittxija tal-verità, għall-ġlieda għall-ġustizzja u għat-twelid mill-ġdid ta’ Repubblika li rat wisq uġiegħ u ġarrbet wisq dannu.

First, let’s bring them all to justice. L-ewwel ma nagħmlu, ejja naraw li jsir il-ħaqq.