The lawyer-politician who was instrumental in forcing the government to implement legal provisions giving suspects right to a lawyer prior to interrogation is now campaigning to ensure stricter criteria for the appointment of members of the judiciary and to hold them to account.

“After the failed impeachment of a judge a few years back, one must surely question the practical effectiveness of the procedure in place. It is undesirable to have a sentiment among a country’s judicature that they are practically irremovable. Judges must enjoy constitutional security of tenure, however, impeachment procedure is an essential check and balance, and we must ensure its practical effectiveness,” Franco Debono, a criminal lawyer and a government Member of Parliament, said.

In an article on The Sunday Times, Dr Debono listed what he thinks are the more serious shortcomings in the justice system. He mentioned, among a number of issues, the need to revise upwards both the retirement age and the years of experience and expertise required for eligibility for appointment to the Bench.

“On the other hand, selection criteria must be more stringent and there should be better conditions, such as pay and pensions, to ensure we are attracting and choosing the best candidates for such sensitive offices,” he said, expanding on what he wrote in his article.

He acknowledged that, generally speaking, there were good judges and magistrates and he said he had full trust in the Chief Justice.

The failed impeachment mentioned by Dr Debono was that of Judge Anton Depasquale about 10 years ago who had not heard any cases for seven years, citing a crisis of conscience on the basis that his independence as a judge had been compromised by a law regulating the work of the court. The government motion was defeated when the opposition voted against.

Dr Debono’s comments were made as a former Chief Justice, Noel Arrigo, was released from prison (he was actually being held at Mount Carmel Hospital in view of health problems) after serving 22 of 33-month jail term for bribery. He qualified for remission, hence the shorter term.

The court is also hearing a libel case instituted by Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera against columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia in connection with a number of blogs accusing the magistrate of serious misconduct.

Dr Debono’s comments on the appointment and impeachment mechanism also comes in the wake of an incident that occurred in court last week during which he was rebuked by an angry magistrate after he phoned to inform the court he was unable to attend a sitting because he was indisposed.

Dr Debono explained it was only after a lawyer in his office, Charmaine Cherret, informed him that Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit had proceeded with the sitting, notwithstanding her asking for an adjournment, that he phoned, asking to speak to the deputy registrar, not to the magistrate, telling her to confirm that he was indeed sick at home and it was impossible for him to attend. Later, he added, another lawyer from his office, Marion Camilleri, also informed the court that Dr Debono was unable to attend as he was indisposed.

“It is very unusual for a court not to grant an adjournment due to health reasons or for other valid reasons. After all, a lawyer is an officer of the court and the accused has a constitutional right to be assisted by his lawyer at all times of the trial. Moreover, lawyers communicate with deputy registrars, by telephone or otherwise, all the time in their normal course of duties,” Dr Debono said.

He said he had accepted, in a previous sitting, the week before, that the case be continued even in the absence of his client, who had to undergo treatment, in order not to delay proceedings, little knowing he would be sick himself. Moreover the witness, who had to testify was a court employee who would have been in the building in any case on another date.