Criminal Lawyer Franco Debono On Why Giving President More Powers Would Be ‘Sheer Stupidity’
One of Malta’s foremost proponents of constitutional reform, criminal lawyer Franco Debono, has come out strongly against a proposal to improve the country’s checks and balances by granting the President more executive powers.
“As I had proposed several years ago, the President should be appointed by two-thirds of Parliament so as to give more dignity to the office,” Debono told Lovin Malta. “However, granting the President large powers would be a step backwards. While Ministers are accountable to Parliament and the electorate for their appointments, the President is accountable to no one. Giving the President more powers may sound like a good idea on paper but in practice it will be sheer stupidity.”
The Venice Commission, a Council of Europe advisory panel composed of experts in constitutional law, recently proposed granting the Presidency more powers over judicial appointments. While the President currently technically appoints the judiciary, she can only do so following a recommendation by the Prime Minister who takes advice from the Judicial Appointments Committee.
In an interview, President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca expressed her desire for her successor, who is set to be appointed in four months’ time, to be granted more executive powers.
“The powers of the President vis-a-vis the Prime Minister could be strengthened by removing the power of the Prime Minister to make certain proposals for appointment,” the report reads. “As it was already stated above, the Venice Commission recommends that judges be proposed for appointment to the President directly by the Judicial Appointments Committee. This method of judicial appointment would strongly contribute to the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.”
President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca said she wants her successor to be granted more powers
However, Debono argued that it is impossible to remove the government from the equation with regards presidential appointments. This is because, even if the President is to be elected by two-thirds of Parliament, there will have to be an anti-constitutional deadlock mechanism that will allow the government to appoint a President if the Opposition refuses the nominees.
“If the government of the day will ALWAYS have the final say and the Presidential office remains a government appointment, with Parliament rubberstamping government’s wishes, no one should even dream of giving the President any more powers,” Debono wrote on his blog. “Does anyone ever discuss giving the Queen of England or the King of Spain more powers? Obviously not. And the President of Malta occupies much the same constitutional space as these two monarchs – except the one is hereditary and the other appointed.”
Thank you Venice Commission for providing a formidable diversionary tactic from the really urgent and pressing issues this country has right now. We are eternally grateful for you coming up with a proposal that was made in the Maltese Parliament thirty years ago and repeated ten years ago. Very learned indeed!”
READ NEXT: Prime Minister Hints At Reducing His Own Powers And Raising Salaries Of MPs
