In 1923, Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart, hearing the appeal filed by a motorcyclist, insisted that “it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. He also noted that “Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice”.

To have the sort of justice the wise judge spoke about almost a century ago there must be correctness in the procedure followed and evident uprightness by the judiciary and all officers of the court involved in a case. This brings us to the controversy that erupted over the past days in view of the way the Justice Minister bungled the nomination of two new magistrates.

While crossing swords both inside and outside the House of Representatives, the government and the Opposition have overlooked one crucial aspect: the effect this debate has had on the ordinary citizen in relation to the administration of justice. Not to mention the shadows cast on the nominees (one of whom has since pulled out), which is certainly not conducive to the sort of atmosphere the judiciary should operate in.

Scandals involving individual members of the judiciary are still too fresh in people’s minds. This latest controversy can only further damage the credibility and rectitude of what is the ultimate bulwark of citizens when it comes to human rights and the rule of law. This time, the blames falls squarely on the Justice Minister.

It was the Justice Minister who came up with the names. It was the Justice Minister who took those names to his colleagues in Cabinet and recommended their approval. It was the Justice Minister who defended his decision when it became obvious there could be legal and/or constitutional impediments. It was the Justice Minister who refused to withdraw them when the writing was so clear on the wall.

He then went to Parliament to try to defend his string of bad, indefensible decisions. There, he himself admitted the nomination process could be improved, that an “all in the family jamboree” in the law courts was not unheard of, that the Commission for the Administration of Justice concluded there was a possibility one of the nominees was not eligible.

The minister decided people are more concerned with court delays than the nomination process. That might have been the case before his blunder.

Since the minister has evidently decided not to carry political responsibility for embarrassing the government he forms part of, the next best honourable way open for him is to push forward without delay a reform in the way judges and magistrates are nominated. A way forward is open for him in the form of the recommendations made by the Bonello commission, the Chamber of Advocates’ suggestions and the Private Member’s Bill presented by the Opposition.

There will be divergent views on the best way forward but, surely, a way forward can be found. Rather than taking the Opposition with a pinch of salt, the Justice Minister ought to adopt a ‘mediation’ role, take the best of what is being proposed from different quarters and make his own practical and doable suggestions.

The way in which judges and magistrates are nominated has suddenly been thrown in the dock of public opinion. The Justice Minister is to blame and he should leave no stone unturned to bring harmony back to the Bench.

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.