In an unprecedented and reckless move, Nationalist Party MP Karol Aquilina blatantly disregarded parliamentary procedure by personally calling for a division, bypassing the traditional role of the Opposition Whip. This action, a flagrant deviation from established parliamentary norms, has further exposed the deep-seated divisions within the Nationalist Party and its inability to function cohesively as an effective opposition force.

Aquilina’s erratic and defiant approach has become a trait of his political career. His latest stunt, in which he undermined the authority of his own party’s Whip, is not just a reflection of his personal ambition but a stark warning of the turmoil brewing within the Opposition.

His decision to call for a division himself, while the Whip remained conspicuously silent, demonstrates his disregard for protocol and his thirst for personal influence. This action has once again positioned him as the self-proclaimed ‘de facto leader’ of the Opposition, a role that should rightfully belong to Bernard Grech.

It is important to contextualize Aquilina’s behaviour within the larger framework of his political conduct. He has consistently opposed Bill 125, reform of Magisterial inquiries, at every stage, an obstinate stance that further alienates him from the core principles of collective decision-making within his own party. Even when Parliament was set to move the Bill to Committee Stage, a process that allows for thorough scrutiny and discussion, Aquilina refused to relent. His actions reek of self-interest rather than genuine political conviction.

Aquilina’s divisive tactics are detrimental not only to the Nationalist Party but to the country. The Opposition is meant to present a unified front, providing a credible alternative to the government. Instead, Aquilina’s individualistic approach continues to fracture the party, leading to infighting and public embarrassment. His manoeuvres are sowing discord, fostering internal resentment, and distracting from the real work of holding the government accountable.

What makes Aquilina’s latest move even more alarming is the silence of the party leadership. Bernard Grech’s failure to rein him in raises serious concerns about his authority and control over his parliamentary group. If an MP can so easily disregard established norms without consequences, what does this say about the strength and discipline of the Nationalist Party? The PN cannot afford to be held hostage by the personal agendas of rebellious MPs, especially at a time when it struggles to regain public trust and electoral credibility.

Aquilina’s self-serving actions are symptomatic of a deeper malaise within the PN, one marked by fragmentation, power struggles, and a lack of strategic direction. His reckless disregard for parliamentary decorum and party unity is not just a minor procedural infraction; it is a glaring indictment of a party in crisis. If the Nationalist Party hopes to present itself as a serious alternative government, it must urgently address the internal chaos that figures like Aquilina continue to fuel.