There are 1,000 ways to rebut Vikki Ann Cremona’s one-sided, misleading and deceitful Talking Point (Times of Malta, November 5) on our justice system. 

I can mention the fact that the professor did not find any problem with being actively involved in the Nationalist Party during the time when prime ministers of the time had the power to single-handedly appoint whoever they liked to join the bench. 

And during that same time, Cremona did not believe that democracy was failing when the Prime Minister of the time appointed as Chief Justice the brother of a leading Nationalist politician, or as a magistrate a former parliamentary secretary who had just lost his seat in Parliament, or a Chief Justice who spent most of his legal career partnering another leading Nationalist politician’s legal office.

Nor did Cremona’s fragile soul torment itself when the Council of Europe slammed the ridiculous all-in-the-family jamboree when the Nationalist Party was in government.

Nor did Cremona bat an eyelid when, save a few and very sparse examples, there was no way a person would be elevated to the bench unless he or she was in some way or another connected to the PN.   I wonder whether Cremona had spent sleepless nights reading what a very prominent member of the judiciary and former PN candidate had to write in this very newspaper when another lawyer who had practically no litigation experience was directly appointed judge under a Nationalist administration.

I also wonder whether Cremona wrote about a collapse in the justice system when members of the judiciary chose to boycott official events organised by the government during the PN administration due to appalling working conditions that this government improved drastically.

Our judiciary should be allowed to do their delicate work without having to go through the barrage of non-sensical and paranoid abuse

I do not want to enter into the “they did it so the other guys can do it” diatribe. Nor do I want to point out for too long Cremona’s hypocrisy who, after all, during the time of a Nationalist administration was directly appointed ambassador without having the need to pass through a parliamentary grilling as needed today through a law passed by this Labour government (for new non-career ambassadors). 

People like Cremona believe there are two sets of rules – one for the Nationalists and a different set of rules for the rest common mortals.

I will outline some basic statements.

First, judges and magistrates are assessed on their performance on the bench and not on the basis of their ‘personal history’ of political opinion or past political involvement. Cremona, unfortunately, will only go by the rules of tribal politics and she is free to do so if her goods carry the necessary health warning. 

Second, it is also very questionable where this much trumpeted 60 per cent came from. If one has a look at judicial appointments since March 2013, one would discover that there are 11 out of 22 currently serving magistrates and 12 out of 21 judges who were appointed since then: this would be equivalent of 53.4 per cent of the judiciary. The assumption that all appointees since 2013 know nothing and care even less about independence and impartiality is, of course, a blatant untruth.

Take, for instance, the totally unfair criticism levelled at one of Malta’s best judges – Edwina Grima. Cremona included Judge Grima in “the red list” simply because she used to work in former Labour deputy leader Joe Brincat’s office, dismissing completely the fact that such a firm was one of the best at the time and that Judge Grima was appointed magistrate during a PN administration.

Thirdly, our judiciary is made up of decent people with a balanced character who fully understand their duty, who have subscribed to an oath of office which has been in the law for a long time, who are bound by a code of ethics and are answerable to the Commission for the Administration of Justice and are subject to impeachment and discipline under the Constitution. They also enjoy security of tenure until retirement age and their tenure is in no way dependent on the government which appointed them.

Cremona seems to claim that judges and magistrates are not independent as they would all be thinking what to do after retirement. She forgets that government introduced the Members of the Judiciary Pensions Act, which gave increased pensions to the judiciary precisely to safeguard their independence. This is not to say that all retired members of the judiciary should be completely idle after retirement.

Come pensionable age they would have accumulated invaluable knowledge and, perhaps most of all, experience, and who would still have a contribution to make to society. To brand these people as merely receiving the wages of past dishonesty only betrays incurable narrow mindedness.

This government improved the system of the way members of the judiciary are appointed through the creation of a totally independent Judicial Appointments Committee. This was unanimously approved in Parliament, meaning that even Repubblika’s own lawyers (who happen to be both MPs – Simon Busuttil and Jason Azzopardi) had voted in favour. The Venice Commission also hailed this development as a marked step forward.

Cremona may not think much of Labour and she has every right to hold and express her opinions. However, crying ‘fire’ in a packed cinema does nobody any good.

She apparently therefore prefers to cry ‘fire’ in the courthouse, but that is more dangerous and harmful to our confidence in the administration of justice. Our judiciary should be allowed to do their delicate and demanding work without having to go through the barrage of non-sensical and paranoid abuse, which has become a characteristic of low ‘social media level’ debate and spin in this day and age.  

Andy Ellul is a legal consultant. This is an opinion piece carried on Times of Malta.