Veteran lawyer Anna Mallia is challenging the recommendation by the Judicial Appointments Committee for the appointment of four new judges, claiming in court that the committee had not been validly constituted and it had “circumvented” the Constitution and acted beyond its powers.
The committee last week unanimously recommended the appointment of Magistrates Neville Camilleri and Audrey Demicoli and lawyers Christian Falzon Scerri and Ian Spiteri Bailey as judges after a public call for nominations. The recommendation was accepted by the President. 29 nominations had been received by the committee.
In proceedings before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, Mallia argued that that committee's recommendation should be declared null and void.
She explained that in terms of article 96A of the Constitution, the Committee should be composed of the Chief Justice, two elected judges, one elected magistrate, the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and the president of the Chamber of Advocates.
The Constitution envisaged the procedure to be adopted in case the Chief Justice, the Auditor General, the Ombudsman or the Chamber president abstained or were challenged, but it did not provide for like measures in respect of other members on the committee.
Consequently, the committee had provided for this shortcoming by laying out Rules and Guidelines.
In the recent public call, one of the applicants was a magistrate who sat on the committee.
That magistrate did not participate in the interviews of the other applicants but only sat for her own interview.
Rather than flag this issue before proceeding with the selection process, so that the magistrate concerned might have stepped down as member to be replaced by another magistrate, the committee laid out its own rules, thereby circumventing the Constitution, Mallia said.
The rules laid down that where a magistrate sitting on the JAC expressed an interest in becoming a judge, he/she “would not participate in the process leading to the evaluation and decision of his/her eligibility for appointment.”
This meant that the committee in the recent exercise had been lacking one member. Any decision with such composition should therefore be declared null and void, Mallia insisted.
A magistrate among those unsuccessful candidates could be selected within the next two years, in terms of the JAC’s rules, thereby effectively placing any new applicants at a disadvantage, she added..
This provision too, was not envisaged under the Constitution.
In light of such considerations, coupled with the fact that committee proceedings were held behind closed doors, Mallia claimed that this breached her fundamental rights.
The lawyer called upon the court to provide adequate remedies to ensure that the selection process is handled according to law because “no one is above the law.”