OAR@UM Community:https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/11252026-04-11T03:02:45Z2026-04-11T03:02:45ZThe right versus the duty to remain silenthttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/1454412026-04-09T13:51:21Z2026-01-01T00:00:00ZTitle: The right versus the duty to remain silent
Abstract: We have seen
lately that the
2020 amendments
made to
the Constitution
of Malta to appoint the Chief Justice
by at least a two-thirds majority
vote of the House of the
Representatives has failed miserably
due to the intransigence of
the Prime Minister and the
Leader of the Opposition. Instead,
both sides of the House are
now advocating an anti-deadlock
mechanism. This mechanism,
when agreed to and whatever its
provision, celebrates the defeat
of the two parliamentary political
parties strained effort to arrive
at a conjoint decision in the
public interest. Political immaturity
indicates that these two
leaders lack statesmanship as
they cannot rise above partisan
politics. Hence, they both agree
on recourse to an anti-deadlock
mechanism though the devil lies
in the detail and surely not even
on this mechanism it is guaranteed
that will be agreement
thereupon.2026-01-01T00:00:00ZThe Constitutional Court strikes againhttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/1451952026-03-26T22:52:00Z2026-03-01T00:00:00ZTitle: The Constitutional Court strikes again
Abstract: Though there are in
deed similarities. The
former is a thief – essentially he steals
jewels. In the case of
the Constitutional Court, the
latter self-steals, it steals its
own judicial independence, offering it on a golden plate to the
other two organs of the state
when it voluntarily gives up its
own independence to appease,
First, a law enacted by the Nationalist government and, second, a Labour government
measure implementing that
same law. [extract]2026-03-01T00:00:00ZBill no 165 : another botched family law reform?https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/1449432026-03-16T15:06:15Z2026-03-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Bill no 165 : another botched family law reform?
Abstract: The Bill consists of a meagre 12 provisions, out of
which clause 1 is the
short title and commencement provision,
and clause 2 simply states that for
the purposes of Part I of that Bill
“Code” means “Criminal Code”. The
‘reform’ is contained in less than four
and a half pages of text.
Clause 3 introduces a new contravention in the Criminal Code: “when
ordered by a court or so bound by a
contract to have access to a child, fails
to exercise such access or, unless
such failure constitutes a more serious offence, fails to return the child
at the time so ordered or agreed,
without just cause”. I agree that the
failure to provide access to a child by
one spouse or partner to the other
needs to be addressed by law as that
is a social phenomenon causing pain
and suffering. [extract].2026-03-01T00:00:00ZJudge Wenzu Mintoff’s earth-shattering tremor : part 2https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/1447262026-03-09T12:59:29Z2026-03-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Judge Wenzu Mintoff’s earth-shattering tremor : part 2
Abstract: What must be kept in
mind is that the
whole appointment
procedure is a
political one, not an
administrative one. This episode shows how
inept the Judiciary’s Code
of Ethics is when it states
that: “Nor shall members
of the Judiciary individually
accept any advantage or benefit
from the Executive except when such
advantages or benefits are addressed
to the Judiciary collectively.” This sentence
means that no judge can ever
be appointed Chief Justice (CJ) as the
CJ appointment bestows an advantage
or benefit upon the judge to be
so appointed; but this Code of Ethics
rule offends the constitutional provision.2026-03-01T00:00:00Z