From a parliamentary motion tabled jointly by the prime minister and the leader of the opposition on April 1, we learnt that an agreement had been reached on amendments to the norms governing the appointment of members of our judiciary. Little did our political class care to let us common citizens know the contents of the deal.

Nor did they care to consult civil society on this subject of such fundamental importance before deciding the way forward. Indeed, it is evident the handful who struck the deal did not even care to inform their parliamentary colleagues of its contents, even though nonethless, the latter approved the motion in full and unconditional support.

That those who deprived us of an independent and impartial judiciary think they can be trusted to unilaterally reform this sensitive sector is surreal. It is amply evident that the intention of those who struck this deal was to try to obtain the approval of the Venice Commission to the reform without actually trying to give our country the best reform we could aim for. To add insult to injury, they even dared to do so behind closed doors.

The importance of having a strong and independent civil society has never been as evident as it is in this scenario. Repubblika has, since its inception, been demanding that politicians let go of the power they unnaturally hold over the judiciary. They should not be trusted to redefine, on their own, the limits of their power and influence over the judiciary.

Some of the contents of the proposed reform have been leaked. Assuming that what has been leaked is correct, we note a small measure of improvement. Hence, for instance, the proposal that the majority of the judicial appointments committee would be composed of members of the judiciary is a step in the right direction. The same applies to the fact that the rest of the members of the committee would be parliamentary officials.

Nevertheless, it is amply clear that the proposed reform does not reach the standards required of a democracy.

Indeed, it would seem that the role of the appointments committee would not be to appoint members of the judiciary, but to shortlist candidates, and this shortlisting would not even be ranked.

It would then be up to the government – or even, the prime minister – to select from this list. In other words, the effective power to appoint and promote members of the judiciary would remain squarely in the hands of the government.

It is evident that, just like the amendments put forward by Owen Bonniċi in 2016, the amendments which are currently being proposed constitute only a slight improvement on the previous system, but in no way do they guarantee the judiciary’s independence and impartiality.

In our view, independence and impartiality can only be guaranteed if the reform follows a number of principles:

First, the method adopted to carry out the reform should be transparent and participative. Civil society should be consulted in an effective and timely manner, rather than presented with a fait-accompli, or at best, simply paid lip-service to.

Secondly, it is the judiciary that should carry the greatest weight in any organ that is set up to appoint, promote and discipline its members.

The importance of having a strong and independent civil society has never been as evident as it is in this scenario- Robert Aquilina

Thirdly, the new method for appointing and promoting members of the judiciary should take into account the fact that the system which is still in place and which is open to abuse, was certainly abused as from 2013. As from the moment Joseph Muscat stepped into Castille, he made it a point to fill the majority of vacancies in the judiciary with persons closely connected to his party. This is a documented fact.

Fourthly, it must be ensured that any future attempt by the government to deny us citizens of an independent and impartial judiciary will encounter in-built hurdles.

It is not the duty of civil society to propose solutions to problems. Nonetheless, in order to avoid being told that no method would satisfy all the principles listed above, it is opportune to point out that solutions do exist.

Certainly, for instance, the inclusion in the new judicial appointments committee of former chief justices, with a clean record and who are not put on the government payroll following their retirement, would be a step in the right direction and would constitute a significant hurdle to any attempt to limit the judiciary’s independence and impartiality.

The effects of the systematic abuse of judicial appointments since 2013 can be mitigated by enacting permanent rules whereby only sitting members of the judiciary with ten years judicial experience would be eligible for election to the said committee by their peers.

Civil society’s concerns about this reform are fully justified. For four whole years, we have been told by our government that the Judicial Appointments Committee created by means of the 2016 pseudo-reform guarantees our judiciary’s independence and impartiality. Thanks to civil society and international institutions, it is now unsustainable for our government to continue to feed us this lie.

We definitely cannot afford another fake reform. Despite the fact that this reform started in the worst way possible, we’re still in time to get it right.

Let us once and for all put our democrarcy on the right track.

Robert Aquilina is president-elect of Repubblika.