Editorial

When Vincent De Gaetano was appointed Chief Justice in 2002, he had an unenviable task on his hands: to restore public faith in Malta's judiciary that was in freefall after the conduct of his predecessor and another judge.

He set about doing this knowing that the Chief Justice does not occupy an easy position. He is head of the judiciary which means he must defend as well as, in certain circumstances, rebuke them. He depends on the government that appointed him for resources and yet must remain independent of it. He is also a judge, which means that his decisions are subject to as much scrutiny - probably more - as his peers.

But by working in a quiet and determined manner, he has led by example and proved to be the right man to pull this most august of institutions out of the crisis it unexpectedly found itself in. He has also managed to develop the role, since he is now responsible for deciding which judges hear which cases. As well as giving him more control, this move has provided the judiciary with more institutional independence from the executive, since this task was previously performed by the registrar within the Home Affairs Ministry.

In line with the requirements of the office, the Chief Justice does not speak to the media very often. So when he does, it is all the more worth paying attention. If one reads the lines of his interview with The Sunday Times today, and takes a good look at the spaces between, it is clear there are a number of areas which he believes are inadequate and in need of reform.

It is alarming enough that 339 Presidential pardons have been granted in the past five years. But his main concern is that the public is being kept in the dark as to why these are granted, saying that this can lead to abuse on behalf of the executive.

He is, of course, entirely correct. It is of paramount importance not just that our system of justice is independent of the executive, but that it is seen to be.

This is possible when cases are heard in open court, presided over by an independent judiciary, and when there is an appellate structure to deal with any injustice that may have occurred. It is not possible when the government is allowing itself to potentially usurp that system for what could be political gain.

The Chief Justice's comments on his brethren judiciary are equally interesting. Although he would not be drawn on specific cases - Judge Lino Farrugia Sacco and Magistrate Antonio Mizzi are openly defying the code of ethics, while Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrara made headlines after walking into the Lija council offices - he says in no uncertain terms that there is no point having rules if members of the judiciary do not abide by them.

He also strongly maintains that they should keep a low profile: "A lot of things Tom, Dick and Harry can do - that are perfectly legal - cannot be done by a member of the judiciary for the sole reason... that it might detract from the dignity of the office."

The problem is that nobody in Malta - neither the Chief Justice nor the Commission for the Administration of Justice which was set up, among other things, to discipline judges - is in a position to do anything of substance about this; since the only real remedy is the drastic measure of impeachment. His job to restore faith in the system will only be complete when this glaring inadequacy is remedied.