After little more than a year in office the Prime Minister is already starting to sound like a broken record when it comes to justifying statements/appointments he makes that are seemingly unjustifiable. He merely points out that the same thing happened in the past, so why should it not to continue to happen in the present?

The answer to that question, of course, is very simple: if something is wrong it remains wrong no matter how many times it is adopted as practice; two, more significantly, Joseph Muscat had spent years telling us how badly the Nationalist administration was operating and that he was going to change things for the better.

The evidence to date is that things have, if anything, got worse. Before the European Parliament elections, his comment on Cyrus Engerer being a “soldier of steel” was a case in point. In recent days his nomination of Wenzu Mintoff as a judge is another. It is an erroneous decision no matter which way one looks at it.

Aside from the wholly unconvincing ‘it was done in the past’ spiel, the only argument the Prime Minister came up with is that Mr Justice Mintoff’s integrity has never been in doubt. He can’t be serious. That surely is a given when it comes to making such an appointment and, in any case, in isolation it is hardly sufficient. There are many people with plenty of integrity that would make awful judges.

So what requisites does an individual require to be nominated to the Bench?

Experience comes high up the list. In a comparable jurisdiction like England, judges in the lower courts are required to be at least very established solicitors who are respected for their knowledge of the law and, as one moves up the scale, they must be senior barristers who have achieved the status of Queen’s Counsel (QC). Before his appointment, Mr Justice Mintoff’s experience of the law was limited to acting as a legal adviser to Malta Enterprise and certain other entities.

While people can argue over whether this satisfies the 12 years experience as a ‘practising’ lawyer contemplated by Malta’s Constitution, one point that cannot be contested is that such roles are unlikely to endow an individual with sufficient legal knowledge and respect to be a judge – before whom seasoned advocates appear every day.

Yet there is another factor that sparks revulsion at this appointment, and that is the overtly partisan political disposition Mr Justice Mintoff has displayed throughout his career to date.

In Malta, practically every appointee is likely to be seen as Labour or Nationalist. That is quite unavoidable. However, there are levels. Given that Mr Justice Mintoff has been so virulent, given that he has edited a party newspaper that is at times vicious (at the same time as being legal adviser at Malta Enterprise which shows a lack of judgment in itself), and given he has been involved so heavily in the internal machinations of the party, he is at the top of that particular scale.

When one combines all these factors, one cannot help but reach the conclusion that there are far more suitable candidates for the Bench – which is a position that must command confidence from all sections of our society.

This appointment is also a slap in the face for any real justice reform, which the government has said it is supporting. One proposal in the Giovanni Bonello report is that judges should be nominated not by the government of the day, but by the Commission for the Administration of Justice. Actions speak much louder than misplaced words.

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.