A properly functioning and independent judiciary is one of the keystones of a successful liberal democracy. Respect for the rule of law and the fair, speedy and efficient administration of justice are central.

Yet, the evidence has been accumulating that all is not well with the justice system. The wheels of justice appear to be clogging up. The latest salvo comes from the president of the Chamber of Advocates who said that it was “absolutely unacceptable” that 1,000 court cases have been awaiting judgement for more than 18 months. He pointed out that the problem lay with a few of the 38 judges and magistrates.

The Chamber of Advocates has highlighted that, according to the law, a party to a court case that has been pending judgement for 18 months or more may request that the Chief Justice change the presiding member of the judiciary. It has, therefore, launched a service to help people to do just that.

The Chief Justice would be bound to draw up an annual report on cases transferred from one judge to another for submission to the Commission for the Administration of Justice. But there was not much the commission could do, the Chamber of Advocates pointed out, apart from drawing the judges’ attention to the complaints received.

The bottom line, however, as the president of the Chamber of Advocates forcefully pointed out, is that “members of the judiciary are not accountable”.

While the Chief Justice may or may not agree with the chamber’s line on the request to change judges (which he believes could actually disrupt proceedings further), there is no way of disciplining recalcitrant judges or magistrates without resorting to the most extreme course of impeachment in Parliament and removal. This is the nuclear option which, as was witnessed in one particular case a few years ago, does not work in practice.

There seems to be no middle way either between taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut or finding a simple method of ensuring judges and magistrates do the job to which they have been appointed properly. The Chief Justice appears to be toothless here.

The Commission for the Administration of Justice has the responsibility, inter alia, of supervising the workings of the justice system “and advising the Minister for Justice” as needed. While, therefore, the commission may advise the Executive, it too lacks any real bite. It has no responsibility for the removal of poor judges or magistrates and can only “advise” the Prime Minister about appointments if he invites them to do so. This seems a woefully limited role for a body sitting under the President, the implicit purpose of which, constitutionally, is to ensure the independence and proper workings of the judiciary.

The catalogue of deficiencies in the judicial system mounts up. The backlog of cases is but one such aspect and a number of issues have been raised, including by government backbencher Franco Debono in a private member’s motion. One serious shortcoming that is affecting credibility and general trust in the courts is the lack of a sentencing policy and the seemingly lenient approach of some judges and magistrates even when deciding on bail.

The administration of justice system is creaking, if not already broken. Action to fix it is urgently needed. The Times renews its call for an independent body to be set up to take an impartial and holistic look at the judicial system and to make recommendations for improvement.