Legally bound to secrecy, the Commission for the Administration of Justice yesterday said it could neither confirm nor deny that it was investigating Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco at the behest of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Judges’ first loyalty lies with the judiciary

But in a carefully worded statement, it noted that those who equated its silence with complacency or inaction “couldn’t be further from the truth” and reminded judges that “their first loyalty lies with the judiciary” rather than extra-judicial activities.

The Commission’s statement went on to note that it was bound to keep silent by law, and said it would continue to do so “even when it isn’t happy with the way in which the law restricts it,” in tacit criticism that echoed the frustrated words of Chief Justice – and Commission deputy chair – Silvio Camilleri to The Times some weeks ago.

“If any criticism is warranted, it should be directed at those empowered to change the law, rather than the Commission,” the statement continued.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco currently risks impeachment, with Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi having presented a motion to that effect to the Speaker last Friday.

The veteran judge, who also serves as Maltese Olympic Committee president, has been implicated in a Sunday Times of London Olympic ticketing sting and was rapped by the International Olympic Committee some weeks ago.

He had shrugged off Dr Gonzi’s calls for his judicial resignation, saying the Prime Minister was “trying to be funny”, and has so far also refused to step down from his MOC role.

His high-level MOC position had already raised Commission eyebrows in 2008, when it told him that, as a judge, he should step aside as MOC President to avoid conflicts of interest. He had refused the advice, and yesterday’s statement also made mention of the Commission’s previous reprimand of Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco.

The Commission is charged with keeping tabs on the behaviour of members of the judiciary. While the Constitution empowers it to give judges and magistrates a telling-off if it feels their behaviour is in breach of their code of ethics – as it had done in 2008 with Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco and Magistrate Antonio Mizzi for his similar involvement in the Malta Basketball Association – it cannot actively discipline them.

It however plays a crucial role in the impeachment process, since any such motions must first be assessed by its members before Parliament can debate and vote on the matter.

The Commission’s investigation can make or break an impeachment motion: if it finds that a judge’s poor behaviour has been sufficiently proven, then Parliament can go on to vote on their impeachment.

But if the Commission finds that the judge or magistrate’s removal is not warranted, then the impeachment motion is automatically dropped.

With the Labour Party having already said that it would go along with the impeachment if the Commission finds that there are valid grounds for it, Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco’s judicial fate now lies with the Commission’s 10 members.

Chaired by President George Abela, its membership also includes the Chief Justice, two judges, two magistrates, the Attorney General, the President of the Chamber of Advocates and one nominee by either political party.

Convening all 10 members to discuss a matter created delays, the Commission acknowledged. It insisted that it was not willing to break the law and speak out “just to avoid criticism or curry favour with its critics”.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.