Editorial: Another guardian for the people

Soon after being sworn in as Malta’s first commissioner for standards of the judiciary, Judge Toni Abela asked, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

Being human, we are all prone to temptation, coaxing and subtle pressures. Institutions, including courts of law, are composed of human beings and, therefore, can never be guaranteed to be inherently virtuous.

Therefore, the enduring question: Who guards the guardians? Who watches the watchers?

The constitution empowers the newly-appointed commissioner to investigate allegations about members of the judiciary.

If he finds sufficient prima facie evidence to institute disciplinary proceedings, he will then report to the chief justice and the justice minister.

For the record, he is also tasked with conducting caseload and statistical analyses, in consultation with the judiciary.

Previously, any allegations/complaints against members of the judiciary would have to go through the Commission for the Administration of Justice. More specifically, its committee for judges and magistrates.

This latest development means members of the public having any “concerns”, to use the words adopted by the constitution, can now go directly to the commissioner. True, once he investigates and finds room for further action, it would be up to the committee of judges and magistrates to make a final decision.

The commissioner can be asked to act as “special independent prosecutor” in the disciplinary proceedings.

Giving the public their own ‘ombudsman’ in the justice delivery chain is commendable. The aim behind the judiciary commissioner's office is to have an independent point of reference when it comes to looking into the behaviour, conduct and attitude of members of the judiciary, though not review judgments, which is the Court of Appeal’s remit.

That can only serve to boost trust in a vital institution empowered to deprive a person of the second-most-precious possession after life itself: personal liberty.

The government says the “reform” will result in more direct access for the public to the disciplinary process, greater accountability within the judiciary and a more structured and efficient response to judicial misconduct.

Of course, for that to happen, a lot will depend on the incumbent but also on the cooperation he gets from both the authorities and the judiciary itself.

The jurist, Abela – the constitution lays down it can only be a retired judge or magistrate or a non-practising senior advocate – selected by the commission for the administration of justice, is a colourful character but has been a creditable member of the judiciary. It is a good choice.

As was the case with the commissioner of standards in public life, the judiciary commissioner will, no doubt, have teething troubles and hiccups.

Abela has already indicated what to expect. “I will be kind when I can but firm with those who do not listen,” he declared on his swearing-in last week.

Most of what he will do will remain confidential. Still, and he seems to be fully aware of such a requirement, the commissioner needs to find ways to keep the public in the loop as much as humanly and legally possible.

He has already vowed to keep the public informed about the role and the work done by his office, ensuring also that the powers granted to the role are not misused as a “weapon”.

This is not only necessary for the sake of accountability but also to constantly put people’s minds at rest that they have another guardian looking after their rights.