The process surrounding the impeachment of a judge is already bad enough. Does this government really have to go one step further and turn it into a farce? Does it really want no one in this country to have faith in politicians and members of the judiciary? Can it not have the courage to stand up and be counted upon to press ahead with the right course of action without any overhang of political creed? The answer, apparently, is no.

This sad story has gone on for far too long. Towards the end of 2012, Lawrence Gonzi, who was then prime minister, correctly moved an impeachment motion against Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, who had already previously defied the judicial code of ethics by continuing to serve as president of the Malta Olympic Committee.

The Commission for the Administration of Justice – which is beginning to sound more like an oxymoron than a serious constitutional body – took forever to make a recommendation; so long in fact that we have since had an election and, irony of ironies, Dr Gonzi left office and Parliament long before the judge against whom impeachment proceedings were brought.

Earlier this month, the commission finally pronounced itself on the case. It stated that the judge’s conduct had undermined “the faith and respect of the public towards the judiciary and goes against the code of ethics. For this reason, the commission finds that there is prima facie proof of misbehaviour by Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco”. Strong, albeit belated, words.

Joseph Muscat had declared from the outset that he would follow the recommendations of the commission. He said he would ensure that the impeachment process took place without delay. Simon Busuttil welcomed that declaration.

Hopes of a rare moment of consensus in Maltese politics have, however, been dashed in Parliament.

After Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco contested the validity of the impeachment motion, the Speaker, Anġlu Farrugia, ruled it was no longer valid because Dr Gonzi, who presented the motion, was no longer a Member of the House.

This itself requires some analysis. The Attorney General has already given written advice in a past impeachment case that a motion can carry over from one legislature to the other. The Speaker back then, Dr Gonzi as it happens, ruled, citing Erskine May, that impeachments are among the very few proceedings that are not quashed at the end of a legislature.

This is the common sense approach. It also follows, from a logical standpoint, that neither would a motion be quashed just because a change of government has caused the head of that government to step down from politics. No more than there being cause to extinguish a court case just because the judge has retired. This would render the law an ass and the judicial process incomprehensible.

The government has presented a fresh motion of impeachment. But, in the circumstances, this approach only seems to support the Nationalist Party’s claim that Labour is attempting to drag out the matter because the judge in question reaches retirement age in August.

By acting in this way, the government’s only achievement is to undermine public confidence in the parliamentary process. Both major parties agreed on the method used to determine Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco’s case. Both major parties agree that, as a result of that, he should be impeached.

There should be no issue. It is tragic and wrong that Labour has undermined that process.