The controversy behind Article 90 of the Maltese Constitution

Abstract

Article 90 of the Maltese Constitution is the sole article in the Constitution which delves into how the Leader of the Opposition is appointed and under what circumstances such appointment may be revoked. A recent occurrence in the Maltese political scene has put this Article under fire, when a substantial number of members within the Parliamentary Opposition invoked this Article to request the President of the Republic of Malta to remove the Leader of the Opposition, on the basis that he had lost the support of the majority of the Opposition parliamentary group. This was the first time ever that Article 90(4) was put into play, prompting a number of divergent interpretations of this Article, and a controversial decision being taken by His Excellency George Vella President of the Republic of Malta, which consequently led to turmoil in the Opposition party. This dissertation evaluates Article 90 of the Constitution and the legitimacy of the Leader of the Opposition in the situation where he does not hold an absolute majority amongst the Opposition in the House of Representatives. This dissertation collates and evaluates the different interpretations of Article 90 by constitutional scholars in Malta and analyse the raison d'être behind the decision taken by the President. This dissertation also includes a historical analysis of situations where the Leader of the Opposition was replaced, or not backed up by his same party members during a legislative term. This dissertation also examines Article 81 vis-à-vis Article 90 to identify any divergence in the process of appointing and dismissing the two prominent leaders in the House of Representatives, and conducts a comparative analysis with foreign parliamentary systems to identify the mechanisms used to appoint and replace the Leader of the Opposition. In concluding this study, the author identifies the extent Article 90 serves to actually remove and replace the Leader of the Opposition and recommends reforms to this Article in order to mitigate the conflicting interpretations and streamline the process.