The rumblings of discontent coming from members of the judiciary, either attributably or non-attributably, through their words or their actions, are a grave cause for concern. An efficient, effective, contented and motivated judiciary is a vital pillar of any liberal democracy. Any loss of confidence by members of the judiciary in their own employers, the government, could undermine not only the administration of justice but also the rule of law itself.

Recent evidence shows that all is not well. Members of the judiciary, en masse, failed to make a presence on two important symbolic days in Malta’s calendar: the 8th September celebrations and the Independence Day festivities, both of which are normally marked by ceremonies at which the judiciary is prominent. On both occasions, it is reported that only the Chief Justice deigned to attend. There seems some evidence to think that this was an unofficial judicial boycott to draw attention to their concerns.

These concerns boil down to general dissatisfaction with what one might loosely call their terms and conditions of service. Judges and magistrates feel that they are under-paid, over-worked, their conditions of work are appalling and the value of their contribution is not appreciated.

Their pay at about €44,000 to €50,000 a year may not seem unreasonable to the man in the street. But when compared to salaries being paid bythe government to chairmen of state agencies or advisers or, more importantly, to what people in the legal profession can earn by not becoming judges or magistrates, they see only a yawning gap.

The fact that ministers were prepared to raise their own salaries to nearly €70,000 a year has not helped assuage this sense of unfairness about their treatment.

Moreover, as if judicial dissatisfaction were not enough, it is plain from other reports that have arisen in recent months that the state of the judiciary as a whole is unhealthy and morale is low. Questions have been raised about the quality of some members of the Bench and the criteria being applied for selecting people to these jobs. There has long been a complaint about the back-log of cases outstanding and the slow pace at which justice is served. The lack of space and modern technological improvements, and the paucity of supporting staff for judges and magistrates, are well known. The age at which judges are obliged to retire is seen as a waste of good experience and accumulated wisdom.

There is clearly a pressing need for a fundamental review of the current state of the judiciary. While the Commission for the Administration of Justice has an important role to play in advising the Minister for Justice on all the issues which have arisen in recent months, it would seem more sensible if the task of conducting such a review were entrusted to an independent body. The former Chief Justice had himself called for such an assessment. Who better than he, therefore, to be invited to lead it? His terms of reference should be wide-ranging and would focus on the current state of the judiciary and the action necessary to ensure adequate terms and conditions of service of its members, including salaries, working conditions, the retirement age and the steps to ensure the recruitment of high calibre members to the Bench.

The discontent which has arisen comes from highly professional and dedicated public servants.

The fact that it has surfaced in the way it has signals that there is something seriously amiss, which needs to be dealt with urgently.