Editorial

Three times in the course of an interview with The Times, published yesteday, Justice Minister Austin Gatt stressed that "human failure, not a system failure" was the root cause for the two resignations that rocked the Maltese judicial system last month. It is an argument he must hold strongly to, yet it is also a reflection of changes in local society that somehow need to be balanced out to ensure that this vital pillar of local society should be viewed with the respect and confidence it deserves.

There was more bad news to come. The two judges are not the only ones in the current team of select members called to serve society in the hallowed halls of our courts of justice who are being looked at with clear signs of apprehension by the current administration. According to Dr Gatt, "...there are three to four members of the judiciary who have really failed their fellow judges and magistrates. We have reached the point when we have to legislate because of... the few."

Specifying the behaviour that was causing concern, "the places a few members of the judiciary are frequenting and with whom they are being seen... is a big problem, one which started the landslide. Again, the problem is one of lifestyle, something about which nobody can write down rules, but is a question of common sense, knowing what is right and wrong."

The Justice Minister's words are sobering, like a cold shower. For members of the judiciary to be in nightclubs, in Paceville, dancing until 5 a.m., "mixing with a certain class of people", shows where the sense of balance and perception of self-image has gone out of the window, at least among these "three or four members", who are clearly causing a bad name for the others. Malta is Malta and people will talk. Or at least the gossip-mongers' tongues will wag, with all the distortions and exaggerations that brings.

Dr Gatt, who earlier says he would rather contentious issues are discussed around a table, and speaking out is only a last resort since "I would have no alternative internal solution", would have preferred self-discipline and self-regulation. Yet it is also important for such experiences, which has left no political casualties but will surely be a topic of discussion at the political level even into next year come election time, to be debated and for the lessons to be learned - individually and collectively.

A key issue Dr Gatt raised was the business interests of members of the judiciary. Ultimately, it always boils down to money, yet as he himself admitted, how difficult it is to find the 'ideal' candidate for the judiciary. This 'ideal' candidate, in his words is "a successful lawyer who has spent a good number of years at the law courts and who would be in the age bracket of 50 upwards and wants to end his career on the bench, or a magistrate who has proved his worth".

Members of the judiciary must be attracted by the prestige, status and respect society confers on individuals who take on these onerous, relatively non-remunerative appointments. Dr Gatt was the first to admit that the package is inadequate for a 40-year-old raising children. Will prospective and current members of the judiciary make this commitment to 'change' their lifestyle or to conduct their private lives in a manner that is 'decorous'?

These and other questions have to be answered by the individuals concerned but we also need to look around us at the 'corrupting' influences of society and lifestyle expectations of the entire population, not just the judiciary. Business interests are another matter. Do the individuals see it as common sense not to be "actively involved in a business" that is clearly in certain instances more remunerative than their judicial salary?

Finally, in a country where these expectations and the dearth of knowhow and initiative leads to a concentration of multiple roles, it is unfair for the judiciary to be singled out for their contribution in extracurricular fields. Dr Gatt appears to draw the line where Church or cultural societies are involved and in the giving of a number of lectures at University on a part-time basis or as visiting lecturers.

The valid contribution of members of the judiciary in the Law course at University and in local associations should not be at the expense of their time on the Bench. This is where performance and efficiency in handling the individual caseload has to be balanced with extra curricular roles. Yet some flexibility is required, perhaps under the aegis of the Commission for the Administration of Justice. The other extreme will leave Malta the poorer.