Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/145441| Title: | The right versus the duty to remain silent |
| Authors: | Aquilina, Kevin |
| Keywords: | Constitutional law -- Malta Judges -- Selection and appointment -- Malta Judicial independence -- Malta Separation of powers -- Malta Self-incrimination |
| Issue Date: | 2026 |
| Publisher: | Standard Publications Ltd |
| Citation: | Aquilina, K. (2026, March 29). The right versus the duty to remain silent. The Malta Independent on Sunday, pp. 11, 17. |
| 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. |
| URI: | https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/145441 |
| Appears in Collections: | Scholarly Works - FacLawMCT |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The right versus the duty to remain silent.pdf | 154.02 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
