[attach id=287033 size="medium"]Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco’s case was rejected. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi[/attach]

A judge has failed to have two members of the judiciary watchdog removed from hearing an impeachment case against him.

Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco asked for Judge Victor Caruana Colombo and lawyer Reuben Balzan not to sit on the Commission for the Administration of Justice when hearing his case, citing conflict of interest.

He noted that Judge Caruana Colombo had been appointed to the Commission by former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who had moved for the impeachment.

In Dr Balzan’s case, the judge said the lawyer had political ties with the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Busuttil, who had expressed himself as being in favour of the impeachment.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco made his request to the First Hall of the Civil Court, arguing that the participation of Judge Caruana Colombo and Dr Balzan in Commission meetings hearing his case amounted to a violation of his fundamental human right to a fair hearing from an independent and impartial tribunal.

The Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Commission pleaded that the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear and decide on the judge’s request because the Commission was not subject to control by third parties. They also pleaded that the judge’s case was unfounded at law.

Madam Justice Anna Felice dismissed the claim of lack of jurisdiction of the courts. No person, including a commission established by law, was above the law, she said. Consequently, all persons were subject to the scrutiny of the courts to ensure that the law was being observed and applied.

She also dismissed Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco’s plea of lack of a fair hearing.

When referring to his complaint about Judge Caruana Colombo, the court ruled that, were it to uphold the complaint, it would mean that no judge sitting in a court could ever be independent in any case involving the Government because all members of the judiciary were appointed by the Government.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco also complained that Judge Caruana Colombo had been a member of the Commission in 2007 when it had drawn the judge’s attention to the fact that his actions (as president of the Malta Olympic Committee) could have a negative effect on his role as a judge.

However, Madam Justice Felice noted that the impeachment motion against Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco was not based on the facts that existed in 2007 but on the allegation that the judge had ignored the Commission’s recommendations and continued to preside over the MOC in violation of the judiciary’s code of ethics.

There are few legal offices that do not include politically connected lawyers

The complaint against Dr Balzan, the court said, was based on the fact that the lawyer had political ties with Dr Busuttil who had publicly expressed his opinion on Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco. However, no evidence was produced to show that Dr Balzan was prejudiced against Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco.

There were few legal offices in Malta that did not include politically-connected lawyers, the court pointed out, adding that if the Commission decided that there a prima facie case against the judge it would be the politicians who would decide on his impeachment.

This meant that political connections were not of themselves incompatible with the process of removing a judge from office.