Magistrate Nadine Lia’s unorthodox reasoning is baffling, to say the least. The NGO Repubblika, under its resilient and lynx-like leader Robert Aquilina, took their case to the Constitutional Court.

They argued that the magistrate, daughter-in-law of renowned lawyer and former prime minister Joseph Muscat’s personal friend, Pawlu Lia, should abstain from a case concerning the controversial financial institution Pilatus Bank, in which Muscat might be potentially involved.

The Constitutional Court reached the only reasonable conclusion: Magistrate Lia should have abstained from the case.

The case was so obvious that one has to ask how it is possible that Magistrate Lia did not foresee its constitutional outcome.

Perhaps she is one of those people who do not reflect enough, or,  perhaps, she misunderstands the scope and purpose of the constitutional protections enjoyed by the judiciary.

Whichever it is, one thing is beyond doubt: her unorthodox reasoning is most baffling.

There are different types of appeal. One of them is when the court of first instance has to decide a new point of law and the aggrieved party feels that a court of appeal would decide it differently.

But, in the Repubblika case, it was obvious to everybody that the Constitutional Court could only decide the way it did.

There was no possible alternative given the well-known close relationship between the magistrate’s father-in-law and the politicians who are somehow – be it directly, indirectly or even impliedly – involved in the Pilatus case she was presiding over.

The nature of this relationship is such that it was impossible to argue that she could choose not to abstain.

There was no legal morass in this case, nor any interpretative conundrum, that could afford judicial individuality. The facts of the case were crystal clear and the juridical understanding of such situations is beyond controversy. How couldn’t Magistrate Lia see all this?

This was perhaps her first miscalculation. How can we know it will be her last?- Mark Sammut Sassi

It was clear to all onlookers, whether they support Repubblika or the Pilatus Gang, or are just neutral. Why wasn’t it clear to her?

What clouded her judgement?

Was it a misplaced sense of partisan or family loyalty? Pressure from her father-in-law? Some sort of pressure from other quarters? A diminished understanding of Malta’s legal order and system? Pride, prejudice, and pique? Immaturity?

I am not proposing answers here. I am simply asking questions.

There could be more ways than one to interpret Magistrate Lia’s stubborn refusal to abstain spontaneously. Whichever interpretation one chooses, the ensuing consideration is always the same.

Does Magistrate Lia have what it takes to serve as a member of the judiciary?

This was perhaps her first miscalculation. How can we know it will be her last?

Magistrate Lia has shown that she is unable to figure out what everybody else manages to figure out and, to make matters worse, without explaining her unorthodox reasoning.

I might be wrong but probably it has become a matter of urgency to consider whether her behaviour constitutes a manifestation of the “misconduct” contemplated by the constitution.

Mark Sammut Sassi is an author and lawyer.