The Ministry of Justice, Culture and Local Government has somehow concluded that, for The Sunday Times of Malta, “matters relating to the increased accountability of members of the judiciary are unimportant”.
In a reply to the newspaper, it said Minister Owen Bonnici took “umbrage at the dangerously misleading perception which the Times of Malta – knowingly or unknowingly – gave to its readers that the judiciary is in the pockets of court experts or that the judiciary somewhat stands to gain financially from the very same experts it nominates”.
The ministry felt it had to “advise this newspaper to keep in mind the crucial role it has as a leading opinion maker in society before torpedoing trust in the judiciary by allegations of rackets or, in other words, corruption, between the judiciary and the experts it nominates”.
The minister also raised the matter in Parliament.
Unfortunately, Dr Bonnici opted to adopt a very blinkered view ofthe situation.
Let’s start with the “racket” issue.
It was the Chamber of Adovcates that spoke of a racket in a report published in 2013.
This is our translation from Maltese of what it said: “Within this context, the Chamber notes there is need for a serious and holistic intervention. The Chamber is informed that this has today become a racket which nobody can penetrate and the experts rely on their personal contacts with [police] inspectors and magistrates to be nominated. The lack of transparency in such nominations is alarming. Furthermore, the fact that it is always the same people that are nominated does not make sense. The reform must also address the issue of these experts’ qualifications, qualifications which, today, are very often nebulous.”
So, the ‘racket’ bit is not an invention by the Times of Malta or its sister Sunday paper. The term was used by the lawyers’ official body.
Dr Bonnici said in Parliament he was informed that, in an exchange of correspondence with the judiciary, the Chamber of Advocates said it was not true they believe a racket existed. This newspaper cannot deny or confirm that because, unlike the minister, it does not have access, directly or indirectly, to letters exchanged between the Chamber of Advocates and the judiciary. So we have to take his word for it.
The minister also told Parliament he had no intention of defending the court expert whose integrity was questioned by the Court of Appeal. Yet, he felt he should refer to what he termed as a “front page frontal attack against a person on grounds that, 23 years ago, he had been given a suspended sentence, if my memory serves me right”.
The Chamber of Advocates reacted immediatelty, noting that the matter was not about a particular court expert because it was an issue with ramifications that went beyond. Agreeing that one should be given the chance to rehabiltate oneself, it pointed out that did not mean that “whoever rehabilitated himself could or should occupy a public office such as that of a court-appointed expert”.
What the Chamber of Advocates is saying about the matter is clear to all.
This newspaper decided to focus on the issue of court-appointed experts as it realised that those in the know are not happy with what they see. It is a quest for more transparency and accountability so the common good can be better served and justice may prevail. This newspaper sought to go deeper into the matter but requests for certain information were not met by the powers that be.