When in Opposition, Joseph Muscat had promised to abide by the recommendations of the Commission for the Administration of Justice regarding Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, thus encouraging the perception that he would be taking his electoral pledge of accountability and his acknowledgement of the need for judicial reform quite seriously. However, the events that followed have now exposed what was really intended.
Once the commission delivered its position on the judge’s behaviour, the impeachment motion in Parliament could have gone ahead. Legal arguments were raised concerning the validity of the original motion that had been presented in Parliament by former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi. There were arguments on both sides and it could have gone either way but the Speaker’s decision that favoured the judge should have already given us an insight into how this would end.
Indeed, it was first thought that the process of examining evidence and hearing witnesses would have to start from scratch and that this process would surely go beyond the judge’s retirement, which is due in August.
While taking all relevant matters into consideration, the Prime Minister rushed to Parliament to present a new impeachment motion without delay. It was most surprising when the commission declared that its original position still stood and is equally valid for the new motion. I highly doubt anyone in government saw this coming.
Now, almost two months have passed since the commission presented its first decision and three weeks since it declared that such decision is equally valid for the new motion.
As time goes by, it becomes all the more evident that while the Prime Minister publicly supported the judge’s impeachment, in reality, what we have witnessed so far are delaying tactics in an effort to prevent such removal from taking place. In fact, the situation is now at a standstill on the pretext that the judge is questioning his right to a fair trial in court.
The government’s position is now that it will be ‘prudent’ to wait for the outcome of court proceedings before going ahead with the motion. This is just incredible and, under such conditions, it effectively implies that it has become virtually impossible to impeach a judge.
What one should consider at this point is that the delaying tactics that were employed previously could have been explained through decisions of a questionably quasi-autonomous nature, such as that made by the Speaker and based on his interpretation of Erskine May. However, this latest manoeuvre by the House Business Committee, which is tasked with setting Parliament’s agenda and is dominated by government MPs, was a political decision.
The government must do everything in its power to restore public trust in the judiciary
It has, in fact, been stated most clearly that there is nothing in the law that would in any way prevent Parliament from moving ahead with the motion irrespective of the judge’s constitutional court attempts.
The Prime Minister’s efforts at having us believe that he would hold this particular member of the judiciary accountable for his apparent misbehaviour were, in reality, nothing but blatant deception.
It also adds to the lack of trust the Maltese harbour in terms of the judiciary and highlights the need for judicial reform.
I urge the Prime Minister to stop playing political games. This impeachment should proceed and the government must do everything in its power to restore public trust in the judiciary rather than contribute to its further erosion.
If Muscat is serious about what he says about accountability, incidentally, one of the platforms on which his government was elected, and about judicial reform then he must focus on increasing scrutiny and ensuring that justice is indeed delivered.
In the event that this will not happen, then, well, perhaps it would be better to just be honest about it. It might all go down a little better than treating us as though we have the intelligence quotient equal to that of a sack of potatoes and hoping we would not catch on.