It started off innocently enough on Wednesday morning when the Justice Ministry announced that the Cabinet had approved the appointment of two new magistrates, both women.
The statement went on to give a statistical gender breakdown of judicial appointments during the current legislature and praised the government’s measures to promote women. By the evening of that day, the two appointments were looking like a monumental judicial blunder.
The nomination of lawyer Ingrid Zammit Young was contested on grounds that it was unconstitutional, because as chairman of the Employment Commission she should not be eligible for “an appointment to, or to act in, any public office”. She has since written to the Prime Minister asking not to be considered for the post after doubts on her eligibility for the post.
The nomination of 32-year-old lawyer Caroline Farrugia Frendo also raised eyebrows, not just because she is the Speaker’s daughter but also because she has not yet completed the obligatory seven-year experience as a practising lawyer. She will now be sworn in next month once she comes in line.
The issue was raised in Parliament by the Opposition that very evening, where Justice Minister Owen Bonnici did not reply on whether the nominations were unconstitutional. Later, he, however, issued a statement to say the matter had been referred to the Commission for the Administration of Justice for its advice on the eligibility of Dr Zammit Young, “even in the light of past precedents which there may have been during the previous administration”. As for Dr Farrugia Frendo, the government stood by her nomination.
The very next morning, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil called on the President, as guardian of the Constitution, to verify if both appointees satisfied the constitutional requisites. Dr Busuttil described the issue as unprecedented in the history of judicial appointments in Malta.
Within 24 hours of the original announcement, the President’s Office said Dr Zammit Young’s nomination was on hold, awaiting advice, while Dr Farrugia Frendo’s appointment would go ahead.
The unnecessary controversy was an administrative gaffe of the highest degree and it is not just the Justice Minister who must answer but also those who advised him. Did the Attorney General vet the two lawyers for their eligibility, and why was the Chamber of Advocates president not consulted as used to happen in the past?
The incident embarrasses the very government Cabinet that approved the nominations and undermines public confidence in the judiciary and the way they are selected. Someone must take responsibility for the blunder, but not only that. A review of the method of judicial appointments has now become a matter of urgency.
The Chamber of Advocates waded into the debate, saying that the problems on the nominations arose because of the government’s refusal to change the manner of judicial appointments.
Through these latest appointments, the government has again ignored the recommendations made by a commission it itself had appointed, headed by former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello.
The commission had said that the system left no room for transparency in the selection process and that there appeared to be no fixed criteria to select people who were most fit for judicial posts. It suggested that the government should, as much as possible, have a secondary role with respect to the appointment of judges and should leave it up to a specialised authority.
Unlike the PN – which has committed to take on the recommendations if elected – the government has so far only paid lip service to the Bonello commission and its proposals. Having blundered so badly on these two latest judicial appointments, it is now high time to follow the commission’s advice.
That does not mean that no one should assume political responsibly for what has happened. Inversely.