Delays in court and the general situation there may be just one aspect of the much vaunted reform in the justice sector, albeit a crucial one. Parliament yesterday started debating a motion moved by Nationalist MP Franco Debono calling for reforms in both the justice and home affairs portfolios.
The motion had been presented late last year and is being discussed by the House just days after Dr Debono voted with the opposition on a censure motion that forced the resignation of former Justice and Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici.
This is being said not to bring this sad story – of political survival by the government and opportunism by the opposition – to the fore again but to underscore the sensitivity of the subject matter: the administration of justice.
Different governments and justice ministers tried to improve the situation along the years. Some measure of success there was but, in general, there has not been a marked improvement. In fact, the situation in court is always an issue but, at times, there are instances when the topic makes more noise than usual.
This was the case recently, not only because of the censure motion against Dr Mifsud Bonnici but also due to comments made by President George Abela, Justice Minister Chris Said, Magistrate Carol Peralta and the president of the Chamber of Advocates, Reuben Balzan, among others.
Deeming it of public interest, The Times decided to look further into the matter and contacted a number of stakeholders, including the Chief Justice.
His “reply” was chilling: “I refuse to cooperate with, and thereby encourage by answering your queries, the kind of deplorable sensation-seeking tabloid reporting which The Times of Malta has been resorting to as of late in connection with judicial events when ordinary day occurrences, such as the ordering of the arrest of non-show persons and the revocation of bail as well as complaints about the failure of attendance of prosecuting officers, have been painted as some rare ‘noteworthy’ happenings” (www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120608/local/-Judiciary-delaying-the-courts-should-be-disciplined-.423287).
This being a healthy democracy, where freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, the Chief Justice, of course, has every right to express his views in the way he deems fit. He is also free to criticise The Times.
However, what he seems to have failed to realise is that, at least in this particular case, The Times was only following up comments made in public, including by the President, who also chairs the Commission for the Administration of Justice.
Furthermore, it is, at best, unacceptable that a person of such standing as the Chief Justice seems to be telling The Times what to report and what to omit.
Such an attitude goes a long way in explaining what a difficult job justice ministers must have when dealing with the judiciary. In the circumstances, justice ministers, present, past and future, deserve all-round support not censure.
Of course, the foremost responsibility of the judiciary is to make sure that justice is done. It is, however, also essential that justice is seen to be done. There is also no doubt that justice delayed, in whatever way, is justice denied.
It is against this background that The Times wanted to get the views of the Chief Justice.
Finally, let it be made amply clear that The Times has always been and will continue to be at the forefront in promoting and defending the rule of law and the independence of the courts. But justice is unlikely to be served by outbursts of the type the Chief Justice resorted to.