Editorial: A line has been crossed
Mintoff's letter rules himself out of becoming chief justice but his claims cannot be brushed aside
The choice of the new chief justice has descended into an unprecedented spectacle that demeans the very institution it is meant to uphold. Instead of a sober constitutional exercise, yesterday we saw the revelation of an explosive letter which poses serious questions of judgement from two of the most important posts in the country.
There are many worrying points raised in Judge Wenzu Mintoff’s five-page letter, a sworn declaration. According to the judge, the prime minister made it clear he is not prepared to consider any name for chief justice proposed by the PN Opposition as he would lose the support of his “diehards” and Alex Borg would grow in stature.
That is absurd. Such a stance suggests that the office of chief justice – the guardian of constitutional order – is to be treated as a partisan trophy.
The opposition shot down the government’s initial choice of Consuelo Scerri Herrera, The government then put forward Miriam Hayman’s before the PN nominated Mintoff.
Instead of focusing on what kind of chief justice Malta needs – a jurist with gravitas, administrative competence and the moral authority to address the chronic dysfunction of our courts – we have turned the process into a beauty contest, with names bandied about like contestants in a political pageant.
There is no doubt that Mintoff should have been considered for the post. His track record and efficiency on the bench is clear to everyone. Even those who disagree with his past political affiliations acknowledge his efficiency and command of the law.
And yet, Mintoff has now effectively ruled himself out of the post.
His decision to send a lengthy letter to cabinet members accusing the prime minister of bias and impropriety was extraordinary.
He may well believe that his grievances are justified and he may even be right in some of his arguments. But many believe it is inappropriate for a sitting judge, normally bound by the highest standards of restraint, to address cabinet ministers in this manner. The letter was bound to explode into the public domain, and it has.
There is no doubt that Mintoff should have been considered for the post. His track record and efficiency on the bench is clear to everyone. Even those who disagree with his past political affiliations acknowledge his efficiency and command of the law. And yet, Mintoff has now effectively ruled himself out of the post
Despite his track record, Mintoff might inadvertently put his role into question should he preside over a case in which the government is a party.
But the allegations Mintoff has made cannot be brushed aside.
The claim that, when serving as a lawyer, Abela exerted pressure in court proceedings, particularly in the Paqpaq case, and that “Dr Abela was more interested in money than in the independence of the judiciary” is very serious.
It goes to the heart of professional ethics and public trust. Equally concerning is the fact Abela asked to meet a sitting judge on February 11.
The serving chief justice was right to ask the new Commissioner for Standards of the Judiciary, Toni Abela, to investigate the case right away. The Commission for the Administration of Justice must also intervene.
Ultimately, this incident erodes confidence in the executive and in the judiciary simultaneously and unfortunately, a demarcation line has been crossed.
Adding to the sense of chaos is the looming expiration of the auditor general’s term, another key constitutional appointment which will soon demand cross-party consensus.
If this is how we handle the chief justice’s role, what confidence can the public have that future appointments will be any less partisan?
The appointment of the new chief justice now needs to be put on hold until tempers cool and mechanisms have done their work. Rushing ahead in the midst of recrimination would only deepen the perception the process is compromised.
Mintoff is facing legitimate criticism about the way he aired his grievances. For Abela, it is a very serious reminder that constitutional offices cannot be treated as extensions of party strategy.