News • 08 December 2002

The outright, outspoken leftist

Anna Mallia is probably one of the most prolific female writers in Malta, voicing her opinions on diverse topics in an outright manner which has become a hallmark of her public personality. But on the other hand she is also a successful lawyer with a strong personality. Here she talks to Marika Azzopardi

Valletta - She comes in fresh from a court session and catches her breath in preparation for my questions. I ask her immediately about her role as a lawyer. "For me justice comes before the client. In reality I find it hard to be a Christian and a lawyer at the same time. I cannot only be a Sunday Christian." I question the fine line a lawyer treads in defending a client he knows is guilty, to which Dr Mallia says in the past that there have been cases which she has not accepted to tackle.

Talk revolves around the legal profession and the way young advocates are taken under the protective wing of an amalgamation of law firms. "This is standard practice abroad and here it is picking up quickly. In a sense it provides the newly graduated lawyer with a better projection. Imagine signing a letterhead which boasts a troop of established lawyers with a hefty track record. It lends a stronger impact to his or her name."

However she laments the precarious situation lawyers are already facing, even before EU accession. Dr Mallia explains that there is such a proliferation of lawyers that some are finding it harder to find clients. "The Chamber of Advocates has not worked to defend its own members: us lawyers. So we are finding that lawyers from other European countries are coming to Malta and whilst not even knowing the Maltese language, can still work here. The only impediment they get is not being able to work at the Law Courts." For Dr Mallia this signifies that Maltese lawyers will reach a state where their business is taken by foreigners even whilst they should have first priority in their own country.

"The Law Courts don’t really render money for lawyers specialising in civil cases and only generate a waste of time in most instances. The majority of income for lawyers, apart from those working specialising in criminal law, comes from the more practical aspects of the profession." Such as the drafting of tenders, the vetting of companies, drawing up legal documents and advising clients.

Speaking of reforms at the Law Courts, Dr Mallia said that there should not be any political appointments and that the Law Courts should not be a government department but have its own independence. "There should be more attention paid to customer care. There should be more respect for individuals. As things stand there is no accountability whatsoever and the ones to suffer are the people themselves."

"Clients, the courts customers often feel neglected, disrespected". Such as on being informed only too late that a court sitting has been deferred.

"Many times clients think that we lawyers are informed of these instances but are callous enough not to bother telling them not to turn up. People take time off work, days off work to come to court and then find appointments repeatedly deferred with not so much as a notice to warn them in advance. This is one minor thing which does not require money to be tackled, but mere organisation."

I query her position regarding the European Union. The lawyer complains there seems to be no balance in Brussels matters and the fine lobbying being made does not leave us free to decide. She points to the still doubtful implications of EU foreign and security policy. She feels we cannot make a balanced decision. "The only certainty revolves around the economical aspect of the EU. But a pondered decision should be based on a wider perspective of the whole outcome of membership."

Dr Mallia says that people might vote in favour of the EU because they feel Brussels is acting as a watchdog over our own politicians. But questions whether we really need Europe to tell us that Maghtab is hazardous to health or whether we needed Europe to tell us about other sore issues of which we are all increasingly conscious. She feels Malta will undoubtedly lose out but will gain through the EU’s observance of our affairs.

"But there is no system of checks and balances involved with Brussels. Take the press release on the closure of the foreign policy, issued by MIC in early August 2002. It states that member countries must give ‘active and unconditional support to the implementation of common foreign policy and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity.’ Where does this leave Malta?"

Again she refers to another document where mention is made of the EU’s demand for unconditional support; Malta pledging its Armed Forces to be integrated into the Italian contingent and where a Military Committee plus a Political and Security Committee were nominated. "Who forms part of these committees? Nobody ever mentioned this publicly."

I ask Dr Mallia about her travels. What has she learnt from her prolonged stints abroad? Her face lights up in memory of her experiences which she feels have taught her a great deal. From the States she has learnt not to waste energy. From the UK she has learnt that the legal profession goes by the book and allows no space for the expression of opinions. "I remember whilst in London, I spent the first three months crying my eyes out. Professors would repeatedly tell me that they don’t need me to tell them what’s written in books. That they already knew all that was written. But they were after ideas, new ideas. Here new ideas are considered a threat to pre-established security."

Canada gave her a culture shock as it was the country where she first learnt that her concept of coloured people was totally wrong. "I came from a time and culture which said that coloured people belonged to the lands of the missions, that they were all emaciated, poor and helpless. In Canada I shared apartments with two female women of colour, both of whom were professionals and from whom I learnt that my perception had been completely erroneous."

Dr Mallia confirmes that her time abroad was a wholly positive experience. It complemented her and she became enriched because of it. "It helped me realise that to understand people you have to understand their culture and where they come from."

We shift subjects and I tackle politics. Has she ever been interested in a candidature? Her answer is an outright no. Basically she feels that in her time parties had an ideal, people focused on the party and not on candidature. Today she says candidature receives the priority and she does not feel it should be so.

I ask her about Dom Mintoff and her eyes twinkle. "Mintoff was a visionary, is a visionary and will remain one. If it wasn’t for Mintoff and his worker-student scheme, I could never have afforded a University degree." She hinted that people who have a hidden agenda are quick to point their finger at Mintoff, without really understanding the man. From this vein of thought she expands on the written media where opinions are penned by certain people whose agenda is not divulged. "We read the name of the writer, but are not informed about his or her conflict of interest. In a sense the party papers are being more honest that the rest, since at least somebody writing in a Labour leaning paper will surely be a left-wing sympathiser whilst the same goes for the Nationalists.”

And since it is that time of year again, understanding, peace and goodwill amongst men, I ask the question she was expecting. What about l-Istrina 2001?

This is a sore one, and I immediately notice that she is perennially hurt by the outcome of this point in the history of l-Istrina.

"L-Istrina 2001 was a trauma. The campaign against me was ridiculous. I only meant good. I wrote what I wrote because of love of the party, which comes first. I feel there should have been a distinction between ‘Where’s Everybody’ and l-Istrina. The media helped create the chilling effect and I had to tackle tough problems at home. At the end of the day, I had felt that l-Istrina would have been a good PR exposure for the Labour Party. And yes, I will be attending it again this year."

We talk about female issues, about which Dr Anna Mallia has often written in her regular columns on L-Orizzont and elsewhere. She feels that the amendments of 1993 have actually thrown women back in time on certain issues. Issues like women and banks.

The lawyer feels that although both man and wife can sign papers, women are not trained to know what their rights are or what the consequences of their actions might be. "Banks are being very cruel with women. For instance women are not informed enough on the aspects of ‘in solidum’ agreements made with husbands. And what about house loans?"

Women signing house loans with their husbands are getting a life span of a maximum of five years. "In this regard the interests of females are not being considered. Who says a woman will stop working when she has children? Who says a woman will want to have children after five years and not later? Why should a bank make such a decision for the couple?"

Again the problems which women have to face when an estranged husband does not want to pay up bills, such as electricity bills. "Women find their household stalls, because the Water Services Corporation will not restore power until the pending bills are paid by the husband. Why cannot the bill be transferred to the wife?"

She mentions other anomalies. Men can administer a wife’s inheritance, the wife still cannot administer her husband’s. A woman who is freshly widowed is still unable to make use of money blocked by banks for a set period of time, following the husband’s demise. A woman needs an official letter from her lawyer in order to access her husband’s tax declaration from the Income Tax Department, when her husband doesn’t require anything of the sort. "The department negates this, stating that a woman does have the automatic right like her husband does, but reality proves otherwise."

Dr Mallia insists that parliament should teach the population on the consequences of the laws it issues. And that parliament’s role should not stop with the law in itself.

Then she addresses the question of illegitimacy and the provision in the Civil Code related to the one-third legitim. "I have repeatedly appealed to the President regarding this. In 1997 the law was deemed unconstitutional because of discrimination. But so far this provision has not been removed."

Dr Mallia speaks about her involvement in other projects. Such as C.A.R.E. the Campaign for Awareness on Radiation Emissions, and the setting up of a national asthma society. Both with a social aim, both intended to help raise awareness and tackle issues.