A year ago, civil society movement Repubblika sought court redress to stop the appointment of six new members of the judiciary on grounds of government interference in the choice. It insisted the system then in place gave the prime minister “arbitrary discretion” when selecting candidates.
The matter also ended up before the European Court of Justice, which, earlier this week, decided that the prime minister’s power to select judges from a shortlist does not breach EU law, adding this should only happen “in exceptional circumstances”.
Since the NGO’s action, the system has been changed and judges and magistrates are now appointed by the President of the Republic in accordance with the recommendations of the judicial appointments committee, which forms part of the Commission for the Administration of Justice. No politically appointed persons sit on the committee, although the chief justice is chosen by parliament.
Once a public call for applications is made, the committee examines them, interviews and evaluates the applicants and then submits the names of three candidates to the president, who makes the final choice.
A call for the appointment of four judges was made in mid-February and the Office of the President announced, a few days ago, the names of two sitting magistrates and two lawyers, who were sworn in as judges on Thursday.
Repubblika has welcomed the appointments, hailing the newly tried selection process a “significant step for justice”.
It may be argued that the government only accepted to change the judicial appointments method because its arm had been twisted by the Venice Commission. President George Vella had also called for constitutional changes in the same direction “as soon as possible”.
What matters, however, is that a system has been found which appears to work, though, perhaps, the next issue to be tackled should be the appointment of the chief justice.
As things stand, the chief justice is appointed by the president following a resolution backed by at least two-thirds of MPs. The Venice Commission thinks the same method as that employed in the appointment of any other member of the judiciary should be employed.
The greater the distance politicians keep from such appointments, the stronger will be the independence of the courts and the public’s perception of that independence.
What the politicians need to do now is take the project forward, because judicial reform is not yet complete. On the contrary, now that it can be ascertained that those appointed to the judiciary are chosen solely on the basis of their qualifications and rectitude, no time should be lost in giving judges and magistrates the resources they need to be able to deliver justice in a timely manner.
There is still a lot to be done in the administration of justice, ranging from improving the physical aspects of the court building and the space within it, to amending laws and procedures and recruiting an adequate complement of well-trained, motivated supporting staff.
The Association of Maltese Judges and Magistrates has just insisted that more magistrates are needed. Last February, it had called for a long-term plan that would lead to more efficiency in court.
In congratulating the four new judges, the Nationalist Party said all of them enjoyed universal respect for their integrity, efficiency and legal knowledge. The new judicial appointments system should guarantee that candidates of this quality will continue to be nominated.
They would then be expected to make their new job a mission and be ready to be missionaries too, as Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon put it during his last sitting before retiring last month.