PN, PL lock horns over police commissioner appointment system

Government and Opposition MPs locked horns in Parliament yesterday over a proposed mechanism to appoint police commissioners, as discussions on a bill put forward by the government began.

The bill is based on what had already been announced by Prime Minister Robert Abela, who said that the new system of appointment would include a public call for applications. The applicants would be screened by the Public Service Commission, with people extraneous to the force eligible for the top post. The commission would then judge each candidate and draw a shortlist of two. The prime minister would have the final say on the selection. The person chosen would then face Parliament’s Public Appointments Committee for scrutiny by MPs from both sides.

Presenting the bill, Home Affairs Minister Byron Camilleri described it as a “historic moment, as for the first time in our history, we have a government proposing a change previous governments were too afraid to make.”

Camilleri said that the government had held a video conference call with experts from the Venice Commission in recent weeks to discuss the proposed amendments. “The Venice Commission has recognised this as a very positive proposal, one which will take us in the right direction.”

The minister said that the government had followed the Venice Commission’s recommendations, and that the government was proposing a transparent system that would avoid the risk of a deadlock posed by a two-thirds majority system. “The Opposition is calling for a two-thirds majority vote, but I am convinced that the Nationalist Party does not understand what we are discussing, as it has changed its argument over three times already.”

He said that it was not fair for the people to wait weeks, even months, for a new police commissioner to be appointed. “The people deserve a police force that is a friend to the community,” he said, adding that legislative changes to the system of appointment would also bring about change within the police corps.

The minister spoke of the need for major reforms, which he hoped would start to be implemented by the end of the year. He said that there was a lot of good in the force, but certain things needed to change.

Six police commissioners in seven years - Beppe Fenech Adami

PN MP Beppe Fenech Adami criticised the proposals, arguing that nothing would change. He described the proposed system as one based on corruption.

“The government criticises the Opposition because we have changed our position on the new law, but over the past seven years of Labour government, we have had four home affairs ministers and six police commissioners. This is truly a certificate of failure for this administration,” said Fenech Adami.

He said that the country was currently facing a serious crisis, especially with regard to the Malta Police Force. He added that the government was trying to cover up the reality but “we have the papers publishing stories which shock and scandalise.” He asked how people were meant to trust the government anymore when there was no transparency in this new law.

He highlighted that, prior to Labour’s election to government in 2013, Malta had a system that worked. “In the past, we had people who chose not to close their eyes to abuse, who were responsible and chose a serious police commissioner trusted by the people.” He highlighted that the first thing a new Labour government did was to replace the police commissioner and then appoint one after the other for seven years. “This has only led the force to collapse.”

Fenech Adami said that although the government claimed the prime minister would no longer enjoy the right to veto the selection of a commissioner, the proposed law still gave the prime minister the final say.

He also stressed that the process was not transparent, as the public would not know on which basis the two candidates were chosen or the basis of the prime minister’s final decision.

Despite the government’s claims, he said, “we have had instances when we required a two-thirds majority, and it worked well. So why can’t we not adopt this method?”