Whether it was a meeting, a chat, a conversation, a dialogue or a text message, the exchange Robert Abela said he had with a magistrate should never have happened.
Talking about it, in a political activity, to boot, shows a certain degree of irresponsibility. As a lawyer, he should have known better.
As a member of parliament, Abela is bound by the code of ethics not to use “any inappropriate influence, threats or pressure that should not be exerted in the performance of his duties” when conveying complaints by constituents and making representations on their behalf.
In their behaviour and decisions, ministers – and he is the first among the equals – are expected to “show respect to the institutions and shall respect the laws of the country”.
The magistrate too has a lot to answer for. This episode regrettably casts a dark shadow on all the magistrates since no names have been mentioned. Hence, for justice to be done with the colleagues, the ‘culprit’ should step forward, not just within the four walls of the Commission for the Administration of Justice but publicly.
What is at stake here is the trust members of the judiciary must enjoy among the public.
In the eyes of ordinary, law-abiding citizens, the magistrate in question breached the code of ethics on at least four counts.
Members of the judiciary must carry out their duties according to the dictates of their conscience, objectively and without fear, favour or prejudice… not in line with what the prime minister thinks.
Also, whether in their private or public life, judges and magistrates cannot behave in a way that could imply political partiality. The exchange could well reveal a certain degree of chumminess between a magistrate and the leader of a political party.
Their code of ethics does acknowledge that, although it could “be useful and proper to maintain a dialogue between the bench and other organs of the state, members of the judiciary shall not, however, communicate in private with members of the executive on any matter connected with their duties or functions”.
If such communication is necessary, it has to be done through the proper channels. It does not seem the exchange took place within the ambit of some formal representations between the members of the judiciary and the authorities.
“Members of the judiciary,” the code of ethics lays down, “shall conduct themselves, both in court and outside court, in such a manner as not to put into doubt their independence and impartiality or the independence and impartiality of the office they hold”.
Rather than defend his political master – who holds the strings of his powerful office – the justice minister should waste no more time in making a statement in parliament and putting all the cards on the table. Perhaps then the people will know what action, if any, the Commission for the Administration of Justice, the chief justice and the senior magistrate should take.
As the citizens’ ultimate bulwark, the court cannot afford to lose any of the trust it should enjoy among the public. We already have had a magistrate disgracefully using the term “whore” when addressing a lawyer who kissed her cousin, a lawyer too, on the cheek.
Another refused to recuse herself in a clear case of justice not seen to be done, and now, a magistrate has been ‘communicating’ with the prime minister about sentencing.
There is no room for shenanigans in the administration of justice; much less familiarity that breeds distrust.