ADPD’s bid to challenge two party system rejected by Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court rejected ADPD’s bid to challenge constitutional mechanisms on corrective and gender seats, ruling that it has no power to examine alleged conflicts within the Constitution itself.

The case centred on articles in the constitution which regulate how parliamentary seats are allocated. ADPD argued that these provisions infringe the right to free elections, equality, and freedom of association, and that the courts should intervene when constitutional provisions undermine other constitutional guarantees.

The court dismissed ADPD’s arguments. In its judgment, it held that all provisions of the constitution are equal in status and cannot be declared inconsistent with one another.

Constitutional inconsistency, it said, can only arise in relation to ordinary laws, not the constitution itself. Once a provision is validly inserted into the constitution, the court argued, it is beyond judicial scrutiny by reference to other constitutional norms.

That logic extended to ADPD’s arguments based on the European Convention on Human Rights. While ordinary legislation must comply with European standards, the Court concluded that the Maltese constitution is excluded from that framework under domestic law, which enshrines its supremacy as the law of the land.

As a result, ADPD’s claims were deemed legally inadmissible. The judges also rejected the argument that the courts should step in precisely because the constitution is silent on internal conflicts. Their powers, the court said, are strictly limited by law.

Expressing the party’s disappointment over the judgement, ADPD’s representatives accused the court of “washing its hands” of the case and failing to engage with the arguments placed before it.

They pointed to the complete absence of any reference to Article 1 of the Constitution, which establishes respect for human rights as a foundational principle of the Maltese constitutional order.

The party also highlighted a 1996 Constitutional Court ruling in which the court had taken a different approach and found that part of the constitution conflicted with its own human rights provisions. In the present case, ADPD argued, the court neither addressed that precedent nor explained why it no longer applies.

Party chairperson Sandra Gauci and Deputy Carmel Cacopardo said ADPD is consulting its legal team on possible next steps, including taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Today’s update represents the latest setback in the party’s efforts to amend Malta’s electoral system, which they argue is skewed heavily against third parties. This case dates back to the 2022 general elections, though the party has consistently argued for better representation for over three decades.