Letters to the editor – March 13, 2026

Choice of chief justice

Carmel Sciberras of Naxxar writes:

After what has happened recently, some believe that the choice of chief justice should be taken away from the hands of politicians and given to the current members of the judiciary – magistrates and judges – for them to elect their primus inter pares.

Members of the judiciary. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

Setting the record straight

Matthew Grech of Attard writes:

I refer to the editorial ‘Fighting falsity outside the courtroom’ (March 10).

As the editorial discusses my case and attributes positions to me, I respectfully request the opportunity to clarify several points for the sake of accuracy and fairness in public discussion.

First, it refers to me as the general secretary of ABBA and associates me with River of Love Church. This is no longer the case. It has been approximately four years since I stepped down from being the general secretary for ABBA political party and I am no longer part of River of Love Church. Readers deserve to be aware of this in order to understand my current position correctly.

Second, the editorial presents the recent court case in a way that suggests a loophole or failure in the law. In reality, the court carefully examined the facts and concluded that no offence had been committed. The ruling affirmed an important legal distinction between coercive practices and the lawful expression of beliefs or the exploration of personal experiences in conversation or counselling. Respect for the rule of law requires acknowledging the reasoning of the court, even when one disagrees with it.

Third, the editorial labels my views as “falsities” and describes them in strongly ideological terms. In a democratic society, however, questions about identity, personal change and faith are matters on which people hold different convictions. Many individuals freely testify that their lives and experiences have changed through faith and personal reflection. 

Their voices and autonomy should not be dismissed simply because they do not fit a prevailing narrative.

Public debate is healthiest when it is conducted with intellectual honesty and mutual respect. I fully support open discussion about these issues  but such discussion should not rely on caricature or personal labels. Disagreement should be answered with argument rather than with attempts to marginalise those who hold different views.

For these reasons, I welcome the call for discussion outside the courtroom. That discussion, however, must allow space for genuine pluralism – including the freedom of people of faith to express their convictions and the freedom of individuals to share their own experiences.