The prime minister has both the right and the duty to protect society. However, he must be careful not to overstep his authority and interfere in the work of the institutions that have specific legal and constitutional tasks.

He cannot act as prime minister, judge and jury. What he has to do as the head of a democracy is to promote and defend the separation of powers.

He must also uphold the rule of law, not by verbally saying the institutions work but by allowing and empowering them to operate in terms of the existing laws of the country.

It is becoming worrying to see the attorney general and the police commissioner appear reluctant to take any action that could somehow embarrass the Abela administration.

The prime minister has recently made it clear he is not all too happy with some decisions taken by the judiciary.

Asked recently whether victims suffering a permanent disability in traffic accidents are getting sufficient justice when perpetrators are just slapped on the wrist, he wondered whether the court was handing down sentences that fit the crime.

Just days ago, Abela said laws for reckless driving are not being used to their fullest by the judiciary.

He had also written to the chief justice effectively reporting a magistrate who, in his opinion, was taking too long to conclude the inquiry into the death of a young man in a building collapse at Corradino late last year.

The prime minister would only be contradicting himself by making such statements and, at the same time, acknowledging that punishment is strictly the judiciary’s remit and declaring he would not want to go beyond his role.

Like the rest of us, Abela should, of course, also be worried by the many lives and limbs being lost on our roads. And just like all of us, he too may not be too happy with the way the institutions are dealing, or, rather, failing to deal, with the situation.

As prime minister he has to be extra careful not to cross that demarcation line beyond which genuine concern risks becoming dangerous interference

However, as prime minister he has to be extra careful not to cross that demarcation line beyond which genuine concern risks becoming dangerous interference.

As the head of government, which also happens to enjoy a very comfortable majority in parliament, the prime minister has the privilege of being in a position to push forward legislation.

The government did so when it introduced the concept of femicide in the law and when it decriminalised simple drug possession, for example.

So if Abela is truly worried about the situation and he honestly thinks the judiciary should be tougher, he should seek to change the law as other countries, such as Italy, have done. That would also be in line with the government’s positive obligation to ensure the people’s well-being and, more so, their lives are protected.

He has already hinted he does not exclude employing legislative tools to make magistrates and judges dish out harsher punishments for drivers found guilty of manslaughter.

The government and parliament would be in order if they resolved to enact provisions making it mandatory for the judiciary to deliver effective jail sentences for what the Italians call ‘road homicide’.

If laws and regulations remain unchanged, however, the court is free to exercise its discretion, though that may lead to public criticism and even distrust.

It is up to legislators to change that law and, if they do not do so, they have only themselves to blame.