Letters to the editor - July 21, 2026

When silence is eloquent

Andrew Borg-Cardona of Lija writes:

Judges spend an entire career learning one discipline above all others: restraint. They do not answer critics. They do not join public arguments. They speak through judgments because justice depends as much upon public confidence as it does upon legal correctness.

His retirement naturally restored Judge Toni Abela’s freedom to comment.

It also freed him to take up an office that, while not judicial, impacts on the judiciary and its standards. It is, I submit with all due respect, debatable whether these two freedoms co-exist comfortably.

I found myself reading his piece (‘What not to say to a judge’, July 12) with a degree of unease that had something to do with what was written and even more to do with who wrote it.

The author is no longer simply a retired member of the Bench. He is now commissioner for standards of the judiciary, a constitutional office entrusted with overseeing ethical standards among judges and magistrates. That office exists not to enter public controversies but to stand above them.

Judge Toni Abela. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

Nobody questions Abela’s right to hold views. If he is of the view that it is appropriate for a retired judge to provide a vade mecum to witnesses (and accused, in some contexts) on how to impress themselves on the court, then who am I to gainsay him? I do question, however, whether the holder of the office he holds should have given effect to that view.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the old maxim that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done lives on for a reason. Is it in the interests of justice for the man charged with upholding it in his former colleagues to be seen telling the Great Unwashed not to plead guilty too early? I only use that as a somewhat stark example of the sort of thing that was written, it is not my intention to debate the merits of the article. Indeed, one might question some of the propositions advanced but that is not my point.

What gives me pause for thought is not whether the article is right or wrong. It is that the office lends the article an institutional authority it ought not to possess.

Readers are no longer hearing merely from a retired judge, which itself might have been less than ideal. The commissioner occupies a role analogous to an ombudsman for judicial conduct. Such offices derive their legitimacy from public confidence that they stand outside public advocacy.

The rule of law depends upon institutions that know when to speak. It also depends upon institutions that know when not to.

Perhaps the greatest contribution a retired judge can make after accepting such an office is not another opinion piece.

It is the quiet confidence that comes from allowing the office itself to do the talking.

No waffle

Carmel Sciberras of Naxxar writes:

Will the new speaker, Carmelo Abela, make sure that all parliamentary questions are answered accurately and honestly with no spin or waffle?