THE Government has described as baseless former Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs Hon. Clerzy Rore’s claim that he was never consulted over concerns raised against the Attorney General.
In a statement issued today, the Government said Mr Rore’s claim was not surprising, given his frequent absence from Cabinet and Caucus meetings.
The North Vella MP is one of the first Ministers of the GREAT Government to resign this week ahead of the planned motion of no confidence next week.
Rore claimed his resignation was due to a lack of consultation and unfair treatment of the Justice Sector, particularly the appointment of the Attorney-General and the determination of his remuneration and terms and conditions of service at approximately $35,000 per fortnight.
But the Government said the former minister’s position reflected poor leadership, stressing that the Prime Minister’s door has always been open to ministers seeking consultation on matters affecting the Government.
The statement said ministers have established avenues through Cabinet, Caucus and direct engagement with the Prime Minister to raise concerns, and that those mechanisms should be utilised rather than allowing political disagreements to spill into the public arena.
The Government also questioned what it described as a striking similarity between Mr Rore’s argument and comments recently made by the Opposition Leader on the same issue.
“The Opposition Leader raised a similar claim regarding a lack of consultation only days ago.
“Now, that very same contention has emerged as part of the justification being advanced by ministers supporting the motion against the Prime Minister,” the statement said.
“That coincidence deserves scrutiny.”
The Government statement said the issue was therefore no longer simply whether one minister believed he had received sufficient consultation.
“The bigger question is whether ‘lack of consultation’ is being used as a convenient political justification for a move that may have been contemplated well before the current dispute emerged,” the statement said.
According to the Government, the sequence of events raises legitimate questions about the real motivations behind the motion.
“If the same argument is first advanced by the Opposition and then adopted by members within the Government as a central justification for their position, the public is entitled to ask: Is this genuinely about consultation, or is consultation simply the public-facing explanation for a much broader political strategy?” the statement said.
The Government statement stated that political disagreements should be addressed through established leadership structures, including Cabinet, Caucus and direct dialogue with the Prime Minister.
“Political disagreements should be resolved through Cabinet, Caucus and dialogue, not manufactured narratives designed to justify political manoeuvring,” the statement said.
The Government statement added that it remained committed to ensuring internal differences were addressed through proper processes and established leadership channels.
