Editorial

The new Chief Justice could not have started his term with a better speech. Though judges should in no way attempt to please the public with what they say, it does not do any harm when they do so. On the contrary, this can only strengthen confidence in the justice system.

Silvio Camilleri picked up on a point where his predecessor, Vincent DeGaetano, left off, which relates to the true meaning of the independence of the judiciary.

While reiterating a view upon which everybody should agree, that the protection offered by the Constitution to the judiciary – which enables members of the bench to exercise their duties unencumbered – is a privilege bestowed on the public rather than the individuals themselves, he drew a very important line.

Which is, that the independence of the judiciary does not mean independence from the ethical rules of correct behaviour and discipline that must be adhered to if members of the bench are to be perceived as impartial.

Which means that the judiciary cannot report for work or be absent from it when they feel like it without good reason.

Which also means that they “cannot do as they please” – not just in their professional life, but in terms of how they conduct themselves outside the precincts of the courts of law.

Though these messages will not have been music to the ears of some, it may have provided them with some food for thought as to what may be about to come, if the Chief Justice manages to enforce the sound principles he has enunciated.

However, he cannot do this alone. Not only does he need help, as he alluded to in his speech, from everyone associated with the justice process – fellow judges, magistrates, the legal profession and personnel who administer the courts – but he also requires the support of the government in one very important aspect: which is to give the Chief Justice more power to make it possible for him to manage the judiciary, and discipline them if necessary, as he sees fit.

The Chief Justice did in his speech indicate how this can be done – by calling for a review of the Commission for the Administration of Justice.

This body is currently tasked with the role of making members of the judiciary accountable in so far as this is possible, yet instance after instance has proved that it is woefully incapable of performing this task. It has become rather like an old lion – grand and imposing – that has no teeth.

Though it makes eminent sense, as the Chief Justice suggested, to study the legislation that provided for the setting up of the commission, the remit of any body charged with performing such a task should include considering the possibility of eliminating it altogether; reason being that the very makeup of the commission is intrinsically flawed.

It is highly undesirable for the commission to contain members of the judiciary who are nominated as representatives of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, since this blurs a true separation of powers. And it is equally undesirable that lawyers have a representative on this commission and that its meetings are chaired by the head of state, who should be detached from, and by virtue of his position above, any such proceedings.

The judiciary would enjoy more independence than exists at present if these powers were vested in the Chief Justice himself – even if this means changing the manner in which he is appointed – and, to boot, there would be more control.