In 2020, while vying for Labour Party leadership, Prime Minister Robert Abela reportedly dismissed the idea of adopting the Venice Commission’s reform proposals “lock, stock and barrel,” arguing Malta should “pick and choose.”
Five years later, the rhetoric has shifted. Standing before the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly during his second term as Prime Minister in June 2025, Abela claimed:
“When it comes to the absolute majority of the reforms, we took the report and implemented it lock, stock and barrel.”
“[Malta] is an example of best practice when it comes to reforms.”
But does the record back him up?
At the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly in June, Prime Minister Robert Abela made a series of statements on reforms, rule of law, and press freedom.
On Venice Commission recommendations:
- “I am very proud to say that we implemented the Venice Commission report in full, apart from some very minor aspects, where unfortunately our opposition opposed.”
- “By 2021, we finished a whole raft of reforms which had been suggested to us. We had absolutely no issue with the Venice Commission. I think the Venice Commission cites us as an example of best practice when it comes to reforms.”
On the safety of journalists and the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia:
- “We have done an overhaul of our institutional setup following that case. (…)I think many other countries could look at us as an example and consider us as best practice when it comes to the implementation of the best rule of law practices. I think we have learned from that case and implemented robust reforms in practice.”
- “We fully recognise the essential role that journalists play in a healthy democracy. It is part of our broad commitment to ensure that journalists can work freely and safely,” he said.
The Venice Commission is the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters. In 2018, in the wake of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, the Venice Commission recommended several reforms in the justice sector, including:
- Dismissals of judges and magistrates should not be made by Parliament;
- The judgments of the Constitutional Court finding legal provisions unconstitutional should have erga omnes force (which means that they should apply beyond an individual case);
- Parliament should be strengthened by tightening rules on conflicts of incompatibility, notably as concerns appointments of MPs to Officially Appointed Bodies;
- An increase in MPs’ salaries, allowing them to focus on parliamentary work.
In 2020, the Venice Commission reminded Parliament to act on decisions where the “Constitutional Court [finds] a legal provision unconstitutional”, and issued several recommendations on the appointments to key enforcement positions.
This, notably, introduces, as an anti-deadlock mechanism, the election of the Chief Justice by the judges of the Supreme Court in the absence of an agreement of two-thirds of the MPs for his or her election, and that the names of the three candidates should be published when the Judicial Appointments Committee transmits them to the President.
In its detailed opinion that same year, it criticised the ‘rushed’ adoption of some suggested legal changes, without proper consultation.
The latest Venice Commission opinion on Malta was issued in 2021 and related to substantial administrative penalties.
A 2024 rule of law report by the European Commission, which takes note of the recommendations by the Venice Commission, said “some further progress in pursuing efforts to improve the efficiency of the justice system”, but stressed that “anti-corruption recommendations issued following the public inquiry into the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia have not been implemented yet.”
According to the report, there was “no progress on establishing a robust track record of final judgments” in corruption cases.
Malta continues to perform poorly according to the EU’s latest justice scoreboard:
- Despite having more lawyers per capita than most EU countries, Malta fared worst in the EU in terms of lawyers’ independence.
- Malta was third-worst in terms of the use of digital technology by courts and prosecution services.
- The estimated time to resolve judicial cases in Malta is among the longest.
Neither the Venice Commission opinion nor the Rule of Law report on Malta contains the words “good” or “best practice”.
The idea appears to originate from a Politico ‘Brussels Playbook’ sub-heading, titled ‘Best Practice Malta’, regarding an interview with then-EU commissioner Didier Reynders. Abela had tweeted that sub-heading, and then-justice minister Edward Zammit Lewis referenced it in a Times of Malta op-ed in 2021.
Among the Venice Commission recommendations, the erga omnes principle, or at least an obligation for the parliament to remove unconstitutional laws, remains entirely unimplemented, as we have already reported.
Recent judicial reforms have also courted controversy. Under a new law, Bill 125, ordinary citizens can no longer directly petition a magistrate to initiate a magisterial inquiry and must instead file a police report, waiting six months before approaching the courts.
This, the EU’s rule of law report notes, “has given rise to strong criticism from some stakeholders about its potential impact on the prosecution of high-level offences” that will “effectively close off an important avenue for accountability and justice in Malta”.
Media aspects: Daphne Inquiry Recommendations Remain Unimplemented
Between 2024 and 2025, Malta rose in the RSF media freedom index, but the authors noted:
“In 2021, the conclusions of a public inquiry into investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder listed an exhaustive list of reforms that the government has been reluctant to implement.
The inquiry urged the government to establish a legal framework to protect journalists, guarantee self-regulation of the profession, and reform the Freedom of Information Act to curb the culture of secrecy. It also called for fair distribution of state advertising, among other measures.
It further recommended creating an independent commissioner for journalism and amending the constitution to recognise journalism as a pillar of democracy, alongside the individual’s right to access information from the state.
A bill on the protection of journalists, submitted to the Parliament, is stuck in the first reading. A public consultation on legal changes affecting journalists is ongoing.
The European Commission’s Rule of Law report noted that there was “Some progress on adopting legislative and other safeguards to improve the working environment of journalists, and no progress on access to official documents”.
Abela’s spokesperson did not reply to our request for comment.
Despite some progress recognised by institutions, Venice Commission’s reforms are still implemented selectively. Authorities confirmed to the Rule of Law report that nothing is being done about the universal applicability of constitutional rulings. This is not a minor aspect, as it affects legal certainty for victims and has profound implications for human rights.
The idea that Malta is a rule of law ‘best practice’ comes not from the Venice Commission, but from Politico’s Brussels Playbook – something that Abela acknowledged when this idea first came out in 2020, but not when delivering his address to the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly.
Amphora Media did not find any evidence that “best practice” was said elsewhere, and our requests to the Prime Minister to clarify the claim were ignored.
The commitment to ensuring that journalists can work freely and safely has yet to yield evidence, and concerns about the justice system’s effectiveness on the ground persist.
In light of this evidence, the Prime Minister appears to continue with the selective approach he advocated for as a Labour leadership candidate, rather than the “lock, stock and barrel” approach he currently claims to apply. The claims voiced in the assembly are misleading.
This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.
