If I had to fault Joseph Muscat during the run-up to the last election, it would be for a glib answer he gave on prime time television when Saviour Balzan asked him what he would do if he lost the general election, resigned, and was then given the all-clear by the Egrant inquiring magistrate.

His response – that it would be up to the magistrate to shoulder responsibility and ‘deal with it’ – was wholly inappropriate. ‘Eye-off-the-ball’ campaign fatigue it may have been, but it didn’t alter the fact that Muscat wasn’t his usual measured and considered self. For had the election been lost, and had he and his wife been later cleared, the gamble would have made him – not the magistrate – look foolish. Who calls an election a full year before term, barely a month into an inquiry, and long before any expected outcome?

But if the timing of an election is the PM’s prerogative, the duration of an inquiry is the magistrate’s. And members of the judiciary should never be coerced, especially by politicians.

As one would expect, Simon Busuttil was quick on the draw, condemning the remark as an attack not only on the individual magis­trate but on the judiciary itself. The Chamber of Advocates lost no time too in criticising Muscat’s imprudence and impudence.

I wholeheartedly shared the Chamber’s disapproval, although I found Busuttil’s censure contrived. My view was that he had attacked the judiciary on previous occasions, both during the campaign and before, and with the full backing of his party.

You may recall the sizeable crowd of protesters gathered outside the Law Courts at the beginning of a run-of-the-mill defamation case against MP Jason Azzopardi. On that occasion Busuttil was the rabble-rouser against the judiciary (‘If we lose it here, we will appeal; if we lose it on appeal, we will go to the European Court’). But there were other provocations, some even making it to the Constitutional Court. Even more to the point, Busuttil spent the entire campaign dodging questions concerning his resignation if the Egrant allegations were finally unsubstantia­ted. His dogged insistence that the glaring evidence would make it impossible for the Egrant magistrate not to reach the desired verdict stuck in my craw.

Surely, the more ‘obvious’ a conflict of interest, the more it is in the public eye and proof against bias

If the Chamber of Advocates chose not to flag Busuttil’s not-so-subtle interference then, it has certainly done so now. The latest example of judicial interference sees Busuttil questioning the independence and integ­rity of Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi, the judge tasked with upholding or revoking Magistrate Ian Farrugia’s decision to green-light an investigation into money-laundering in respect of Konrad Mizzi, Keith Schembri, Brian Tonna, Karl Cini, Malcolm Scerri and Adrian Hillman.

Busuttil is objecting to the duty judge’s continued hearing of applications. His contention is that the judge’s marriage to Labour MEP Marlene Mizzi constitutes a conflict of interest that will prevent justice from being and being seen to be done. The Chamber of Advocates, not unnaturally, has come out strongly against such public contempt, insisting that it constitutes not just an attack on Mizzi but an affront to the entire judiciary. It insists that any misgivings should have been addressed through the proper legal channels.

Busuttil is hard work. One month he’s moralising about the integrity and independence of the judiciary and two months later he’s bashing it to score a political point. Interestingly, many of those who ‘agree’ with him seem also to agree that Mr Justice Mizzi is a man of unimpeachable integrity. But they are prepared to set that aside and pursue, with a misplaced fastidiousness, the notion that Mizzi’s recusal is the only way. That is for His Honour to decide – in private.

I find it so unfortunate and unfair that Mizzi has been put in this position on the threshold of his retirement. Make no mistake, Busuttil’s song and dance has absolutely nothing to do with justice ‘being done’ and everything to do with justice being ‘undone’. The ulterior motive seems to be fostering the illusion that Maltese justice is in some kind of institutional free-fall. And what sort of message does that send to the citizens of this country who, over the past 30 years, have been served by Mizzi’s sense of justice?

Mr Justice Mizzi has been married for 37 years. He has been a member of the judiciary for 30. His wife Marlene Mizzi was elected to the European Parliament on a Labour ticket four years ago. If the life choices he made 30 years ago are suddenly inconvenient to the Opposition Leader, he should, at the very least, have kept his mouth shut instead of making it seem like Mizzi was somehow to blame for being on duty on the day the magistrate gave his ruling, with a mere two days to ‘appeal’.

Given Malta’s size, its parochial society and family networks, ‘conflicts of interest’ are everywhere. That is precisely why we really must champion integrity and independence. If you believe in the independence of the judiciary – as I do – then a judge should decide all cases without fear or favour, as his oath of office requires. Sniffing out hypothetical or supposed ‘conflicts’, it could be argued, shows a lack of trust in the judicial process, and undermines rather than strengthens it.

Surely, the more ‘obvious’ a conflict of interest, the more it is in the public eye and proof against bias. Personally I’d be more exercised by ‘less obvious’ conflicts – ones on nobody’s radar, deliberately concealed or deliberately undetected.

I’m the sort of person who’d prefer to see justice done rather than go through the motions and play to the gallery.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com