Speaking at the opening of the new forensic year, Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri drew attention to what he regarded as the invidious practice of giving amnesties to lawbreakers. He said it “frustrated citizens and detracted from the public’s esteem of the courts”.

Malta has its own curious record of amnesties. Twenty-nine years ago, President Agatha Barbara gave an amnesty to mark key Constitutional changes. This was followed with the first of three amnesties awarded to celebrate the election of new governments, in 1987, 1996 and 2013. Malta has since had regular amnesties to mark events as diverse as the visit of Pope John Paul II and the celebration of the Millennium.

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici defended the use of government amnesties for lawbreakers, insisting they had “positive effects”. He felt that, in certain cases, well thought-out amnesty schemes, based on objective and transparent criteria, had positive aspects. But he failed to elucidate what the “positive aspects” were or if “well thought-out schemes based on objective and transparent criteria” actually existed to guide the government’s decisions.

The issuing of amnesties is regulated by article 93 of the Constitution. The Constitution places no obligation on the government of the day to consult with any institution or established law-making body. Surprisingly, neither the Attorney General nor the Commissioner of Police is consulted. The dean of the Faculty of Laws, Kevin Aquilina, says the exercise is often “far from being impartial, neutral, open, transparent or accountable”.

This is a serious indictment of the way the government interferes with the workings of the law courts.

Another, as the Chamber of Advocates said, is the way members of the judiciary are still appointed by the government and are, therefore, inevitably tainted by politics. These instances expose some of the fault lines in the checks and balances of the Constitution which, despite the government’s electoral promise to hold a constitutional convention to address them, remain pending.

Whether as a gesture of benevolence, a celebration of an event or as a safety valve for congested prisons, amnesties are fairly widely used around the world. Cuba, for example, released 3,000 prisoners to mark Pope Benedict XVI’s visit in 2012. Collective pardons were regular features of Bastille Day in France until quite recently. Although the release of political prisoners is normally welcomed as a gesture of political openness, few would support extending it to those convicted of serious crime or violent offenders, such as Italy’s 2006 amnesty, which reportedly led to an upsurge of crime.

While mercy, properly exercised under the law, is a good thing, it also undermines respect for the rule of law when amnesties are issued for quite ostensible political reasons to garner votes or to cover up for maladministration, which is not unusual in this country. Indeed, both political parties have a lot to answer for in this respect. Not to mention the crucial aspect of sending the wrong message to law-abiding citizens.

The Chief Justice’s concern about the impact of amnesties on the standing of the courts is a heartfelt one as befits a former prosecutor. Given this concern, and the clear interference by the executive in the workings of the judiciary against the principles of good constitutional practice when amnesties are issued, there seems an undoubted case for a comprehensive review of the issue to be carried out to lay down clear and workable criteria to remove the Chief Justice’s concerns.