Chamber of Advocates ‘wants answers’ on lawyers’ ban from Ecclesiastic Tribunal

The Chamber of Advocates is still waiting for the Ecclesiastic Tribunal to accept invitations to meet and discuss the highly-controversial ‘bans’ handed down to pro-divorce lawyers.

"We haven’t heard back from the Ecclesiastic Tribunal yet,” Chamber of Advocates President Dr Reuben Balzan told MaltaToday on Wednesday. “We received a confirmation of receipt of our letter just yesterday.”

Despite no fixed plans for the meeting, Balzan said that the chamber remains determined: “We were the ones who asked for the meeting. The moment we’re offered a time slot, we’ll meet to discuss the issue.”

The Chamber had sent a letter requesting a meeting on 2 June to discuss the contentious Ecclesiastic Tribunal ‘bans’ which targeted pro-divorce lawyers.

Causing considerable uproar at a time when the divorce referendum campaign was entering its final stages, the news that pro-divorce lobby chairperson and family lawyer Deborah Schembri was banned made headlines overnight.

Since then, prominent politicians and pro-divorce lawyers Owen Bonnici and Anglu Farrugia were also reportedly barred from representing clients within the Tribunal, within which marriage annulment cases are heard.

The Tribunal’s seemingly ad hoc knee-jerk reactions – and the fact that the lawyers concerned were not given a fair hearing – fuelled considerable concern among lawyers, something that the Chamber of Advocates is keen to address.

Asked about how the Chamber would approach the issue of the ‘bans’ during the meeting, Reuben Balzan said that at this stage, the chamber “simply wants answers.”

“What we want is to firstly, get clarifications as to whether it is actually true that the Ecclesiastic Tribunal is barring those lawyers that speak out in favour of divorce. Then we want the Tribunal to explain its criteria upon which these lawyers were singled out and barred. Does simply speaking out in favour of divorce mean that lawyers will get barred?” Balzan asked, adding that the Ecclesiastic Tribunal should explain its reasoning.

“Once these questions have been answered, we as a Chamber can determine our position on the issue.”

Questions sent to the Curia remained unanswered. “Please note that if and when the Curia has anything to comment in connection with the matter, it will issue a note and disseminate in the usual manner,” the Curia would only say.

Balzan also welcomed made by MEP Simon Busuttil on Wednesday, where he called on government to ensure that the Ecclesiastic Tribunal’s decisions “live up to standards of human rights that the state is duty-bound to guarantee.”

“I agree 100% with what Simon Busuttil wrote. The State is duty-bound duty to ensure that the Ecclesiastic Court’s decisions respect human rights,” Balzan said. He also emphasised the grounds upon which Busuttil was urging the government to intervene are solid.

In his opinion piece, Busuttil called on the government to enter into talks with the Church to address the manner in which the bans were handed out, and that the State cannot recognise decisions “delivered by a tribunal that fails the test of human rights.”

avatar
@Manquareiel de Caveden Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence. I sympathise with the priest who officiated at your baptist. Poor bugger.....I name thee........
avatar
@fehmawvuci. Please re read my contribution. This time try wearing glasses. Or better still get somebody to read and explain it to you. God you're thick!!!
avatar
It is quite obvious Mario Sciberras is not brainwashed but brain damaged. What I liked best out of all his comments is how he expressed his views. "Damn democracy, damn transparency, damn Free speech, damn accountability. This is the Catholic Church of Malta they are talking to." ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME CATHOLIC CHURCH OF MALTA THAT IS GIVING REFUGE TO PRIESTS THAT ABUSED YOUNG BOYS OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE MALTESE CHURCH THAT TO THIS DAY STILL REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE HENIOUS CRIMES OF CHILD ABUSE IN IT'S INSTITUTIONS? Being so close and defensive about Curia matters, one must somehow conclude an opinion about you that would not be appropriate to list on here.
avatar
Ħadt ferħa bla temma għax assumejt illi l kamra ( liema waħda? ) tal-avukati, talbet lil kurja, sabiex tagħtihom maħfra ġenerali lil avukati għax skond ĊIKKU FLOQQOS ta ħdejja ħadd minnhom ma jagħti irċevuta, u "dak dnub mejjet" kompla jgħidli mmasħan ĊIKKU !!! Tgħid qed taħraqhom il-kuxjenża għal imsejken ċittadin? jew TNAQQRITILHOM xi loqma ? BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETER. AMEN.
avatar
@Mario Sciberras I hope sarcasm is your second language!
avatar
Jekk veru l-avvukati irriedu juru sobgha ma dawk li tkeccew mill kurja, hemm azzjoni wahda, li l-avukati jibbojkotjaw il-kurja kollha kemm huma, b'hekk il-kurja ma tkunx tista tahdem aktar, imma kollha tfisser kollha mhux issib avukati laqa u jmorru.il-kamra ta l-avukati nahseb jien ghanda dritt li tohrog dawn id direttivi.il- bqija li jridu ha jibqhu jaghmlu.
avatar
Church's not Churches tribunal.
avatar
How do they, the Advocates, have the temerity to question the decisions of the church? They are a load of "secularist Shylocks" (Fr Joe Borg's words) the lot of them. Giesu, Gesu Marija. What an affront to the church. The church should ban them en masse from representing their clients at the churches tribunal. Damn democracy, damn transparency, damn Free speech, damn accountability. This is the Catholic Church of Malta they are talking to.
avatar
How do they, the Advocates, have the temerity to question the decisions of the church? They are a load of "secularist Shylocks" (Fr Joe Borg's words) the lot of them. Giesu, Gesu Marija. What an affront to the church. The church should ban them en masse from representing their clients at the churches tribunal. Damn democracy, damn transparency, damn Free speech, damn accountability. This is the Catholic Church of Malta they are talking to.