The government – as the system stands today – has few responsibilities greater than appointing members of the judiciary, who are supposed to be learned, upstanding and respected by the public at large.

Since coming to power almost three years ago, the government has not borne those three essential requisites in mind and has instead been driven by political considerations.

This is a shame when it comes to the chairmen of public corporations and suchlike – since a small country like Malta can only produce a small pool of real talent that should not be parted by the political divide – but it is a tragedy when it comes to the judiciary, whose tenure is permanent and whose strength is derived from being independent.

When it proposed the appointment of Ingrid Zammit Young and Caroline Farrugia Frendo, the government threw in another ingredient into the mix: a very unwelcome dose of positive discrimination.

While it is extremely desirable for women to be better represented at all the higher levels, this should not be done in an arbitrary manner – especially when it comes to the judiciary.

Appointments in this sphere must be sexless and purely based on merit. The area is just too important to use as a pawn in an increasing-our-female-participation-score kind of game.

Women should have equal opportunities to be magistrates or judges. They should receive the same pay as their male counterparts. But they also need to enjoy public confidence, and this is only possible if appointees have what it takes to get the job done.

Cherie Booth, wife of former UK prime minister Tony Blair, did not get to be a respected judge because she was a woman; but because she was a very competent barrister – many would say more competent within that profession than her very eloquent husband. Ability should be the standard, not sex.

Yet amid the furore that has erupted as a result of these proposed appointments – Dr Zammit Young has since withdrawn her name – one positive thing has emerged: and that is that the process must be taken out of partisan hands.

The Bonello Commission made this very clear two years ago. And the Nationalist Party has followed up on the issue by proposing the setting up of a Judicial Services Appointment Authority in a Private Member’s Bill. This would basically put an end to the damaging partisanship that is hampering judicial appointments.

So why has the government been dragging its feet?

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici says there have been other priorities, such as dealing with the backlog of cases. But is there any reason why the two issues should be mutually exclusive? Moreover, what could be more important than getting right the permanent engagement of a member of the judiciary?

It is unfortunate that he has chosen to wade into the sodden political football field, pointing accusatory fingers at the Nationalist Party for not doing anything about the situation while it was in government. This is an irrelevant diversion, for the PN is in government no longer. That is solely Labour’s responsibility now.

Of course, the difficultly of making the right judicial appointments will not be solved merely by having the appropriate mechanism. The conditions required to attract suitable candidates – not least salary – must also be addressed for the best people to be willing to take on such an important role. Extending the retirement age – why not make it 70 rather than 68? – would also make eminent sense.

But for any of this to happen, politics must first be put to one side. And the national interest thrust forward in its place.