Labour's failure to summon its witnesses earns stern rebuke

The judge hearing the constitutional case filed by the Labour Party, regarding the 2013 general elections has lambasted the plaintiff for having failed to summon any witnesses for two consecutive sittings.

Labour had filed the claim in June, objecting to a passage in an otherwise favourable decision of the Constitutional Court, which held that the First Hall had jurisdiction over the case.

Today’s case was filed by Labour against the Attorney General, the permanent secretary within the Justice Ministry, the PN, the Electoral Commission, the registrar of the Law Courts and the MPs affected by a counting error.

The Constitutional Court had annulled a previous decision by the First Hall of the Civil Court, in which that court had ordered the Electoral Commission to award two additional seats to the PN due to a counting error in the 2013 election.


The Constitutional Court had found that Labour should have been included as a party to the original case, and the case was then sent back to the First Hall to be heard again.

Labour is arguing that the Constitutional Court had deprived it of the opportunity to make oral submissions on that issue, thereby breaching its right to a fair hearing.

This morning, Madame Justice Schembri Orland expressed dismay at the fact that the Labour's lawyer, Toni Abela, had only summoned one witness to testify today.

The court noted that in spite of having dedicated two sittings - over three hours of court time – to hear the plaintiff’s witnesses, none had been officially summoned.

The judge criticised the “unprofessional behaviour” by the plaintiff, pointing out that the case was one which had a vital bearing on the citizens of Malta.

Labour was in possession of its evidence but had not done anything since September to present it, Schembri Orland remarked, her annoyance clear.  

“The court is obliged, as an organ of State, not to allow cases to drag on unnecessarily.”

Abela replied that while he understood that all evidence was to be presented without delay, he drew the attention of the court to the fact that the case had dragged on for several years before a different judge.

Abela promised to summon all his witnesses, explaining that he had only summoned two so far (Louis Gatt – who had testified and Frederick Azzopardi) because they were the primary ones to be heard and explain the merits of the case.

“At no time would I dream of showing disrespect to the court, “ said Abela. He objected to the unprofessional behaviour comment, saying he always carried out his duties to the best of his abilities and with loyalty to the court. “On my conscience,” continued Abela, raising his voice slightly, “I always behaved professionally. I never insulted any courts. If there are 100 witnesses, I will summon them all.”