Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco has lost his appeal before the Constitutional Court seeking the abstention of two members of the Commission for the Administration of Justice.

He had filed the appeal after the first court on October 22 rejected his bid to have Judge Victor Caruana Colombo and Chamber of Advocates president Reuben Balzan abstain from the commission while it considered an impeachment motion filed in December 2012 by then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi,

The commission subsequently issued a report finding prima facie misbehaviour by Judge Farrugia Sacco for having ignored its previous warnings and stayed on as president of the Malta Olympic Committee.

The impeachment motion was presented after the Malta Olympic Committee was rapped over alleged irregular ticket sales by the International Olympic Committee.

The Justice Commission found that the judge was not involved in irregular ticket sales, but his continued presence on the committee had undermined the respect which the people should have in the judiciary. 

CONSIDERATIONS

The Constitutional Court noted that Judge Caruana Colombo had participated in the enactment of the Code of Ethics for the Judiciary in 2004. This fact alone  did not impinge on his impartiality in the investigation into Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco, which investigation had taken place following a motion of the Prime Minister in December 2012.

The court heard that in August 2007 the Commission, including Judge Caruana Colombo, had discussed whether Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco's post as President of the MOC ran counter to the principles contained in the Code of Ethics. The Commission had decided that the post did in fact run counter to this Code.

Following the Prime Minister's motion of December 2012 the Commission, including Judge Caruana Colombo, had to decide whether the fact that Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco's continued occupation of his post in the MOC despite the warning issued against him by the Commission in 2007, constituted a prima facie case of misconduct which could lead to impeachment.

The two issues, said the court, were separate and distinct from one another and there was no violation of Mr justice Farrugia Sacco's human rights.

When referring to the fact that Judge Caruana Colombo had been appointed to the Commission by the same Prime Minister who had moved for Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco's impeachment, the court ruled that this was not in violation of the judge's right to a fair hearing. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition each appointed one member to the Commission, but each member so appointed was bound to exercise his or her functions in an independent manner.

The Constitutional Court then examined the participation of Dr Balzan in the Commission's proceedings. Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco had complained that Dr Balzan had close connections with the Nationalist Party and had publicly called for the judge's resignation.

But the court ruled that irrespective of Dr Balzan's political views, he was bound to exercise his judgment in an independent and impartial member. Dr Balzan was a member of the Commission by virtue of being president of the Chamber of Advocates and was not a political appointee. His political affiliations were therefore irrelevant.

The court further dismissed Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco's claims that he had been given very short time limits to prepare his case before the Commission. Despite the short terms, the judge had been able to prepare an adequate defence.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco's appeal was therefore dismissed

 

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.