Court shoots down Cassola legal challenge to election gender quota mechanism

The court has turned down a constitutional case filed by independent candidate Arnold Cassola against government over the gender corrective mechanism approved by parliament last April.

Cassola had argued constitutional amendments approved in parliament are discriminatory in favour of “PNPL women” and against all other women who are not affiliated to one of the two big parties.

“Worse than that, it is an insult jointly concocted by the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party,” Cassola had said.

The judge dismissed the State Advocate’s argument that the action filed by Cassola was a “nebulous” one but Mr Justice Franceso Depasquale, presiding the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, upheld the argument that Cassola lacked the juridical interest required.

The judge ruled that Cassola's action was “based solely on eventualities and suppositions and is lacking the personal and actual elements which are essential for juridical interest in an action on the basis of Constitution, as well as victim status needed for any action on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The court also agreed with the State Advocate in that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and the rights emerging from it cannot be applied to laws of a national nature, such as those governing elections, that Cassola was attempting to impugn.

The court rejected all of Cassola’s requests, also ordering him to suffer the costs of the case.

The gender quota mechanism cleared third reading last April after 63 MPs voted in favour, while two voted against.

The quota means that if the under-represented sex comprises less than 40% of all seats after the election outcome is known, the mechanism will kick in to elect a maximum of 12 additional MPs – six on either side of the House.

It will only kick in if two parties are elected to parliament and will remain in force for 20 years.