Professor Kevin Aqui-lina (‘Flawed judicial discipline’, February 29) is right to stress the fundamental principle that in a democracy, the judiciary is to be judged by its own peers.
This principle is crucial because it safeguards the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
The Bonello Commission advised that the current situation, wherein a judge can either be warned or brought forwardto impeachment with no middle-of-the-road approach, shouldbe changed.
We agree that new disciplinary procedures should be put in place to cater for instances which do not merit referral for an impeachment motion but at the same time merit more than a simple warning.
On that issue there seems to be widespread agreement.
Aquilina seems to disagree with our proposal on who should sit on this new disciplinary committee. He is claiming that a judge, a magistrate and a lay person should sit, while the government is proposing that three members from within the Commission for the Administration of Justice chosen by the commission itself should form this committee.
Why did the government decide to go for the second option? There are two reasons.
First, the government proposal provides that the President of Malta should not sit on the Commission for the Administration of Justice for the purpose of the exercise of discipline.
This effectively means that for the purposes of choosing the three members forming the Disciplinary Authority, the judiciary would have, at all times, the majority in numbers.
The commission would be formed as follows: the Chief Justice, two judges, two magistrates, the Attorney General, the President of the Chamber of Advocates, a representative of the Prime Minister and a representative of the leader of the Opposition.
New disciplinary procedures should be put in place to cater for instances which do not merit referral for an impeachment motion
This means that five would come from the judiciary, as opposed to four, who would not be members of the judiciary.
In other words the judiciary would have the effective right to choose who will form the Disciplinary Authority.
Furthermore, upon a direct suggestion from the judiciary we also gave the right of appeal from a decision of the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for the Administration of Justice.
Second, according to the proposal by Aquilina, there should be a magistrate sitting ex-ufficio on the Disciplinary Authority.
This is debatable. In the case of a judge being brought in front of the Disciplinary Authority, should this judge be judged by a magistrate? Should not he or she be judged by a peer?
Yet again, the government proposal allows enough flexibility for the judiciary (through the numbers it has in the Commission for the Administration of Justice) to effectively choose themselves the composition of this Disciplinary Committee in full respect to the crucial principle that the judiciary should be judged by its own peers.
Therefore, the government proposal is constitutionally sound and strengthens the independence of the judiciary.
This being said, however, the government is always open to ideas and suggestions on how to improve the legislative proposal. In my public statements on the matter I have always appealed for caution and prudence, since I am aware that the Bill is touching on delicate issues.
We will listen and take stock of all proposals as long as they serve to improve the Bill.
To this end I will be meeting the judiciary and the Chamber of Advocates, who certainly have their own suggestions to make in order to further improve the Bill.
Suggestions from jurists, academicians and lawyers are, of course, also very welcome and in this context I thank all those who have come up, both publicly and privately, with suggestions.
This debate is exactly why I do not believe we should be rushing through.
I look forward to the upcoming debate on this Bill which will further improve the justice sector in this country.
Owen Bonnici is the Minister for Justice,Culture and Local Government.