In his defence of his minister, Helena Dalli’s PRO, Jonathon Brimmer, penned a long piece (August 10) that seems to take as its central thesis the conclusion that, since I am known to be critical of the Government, anything I write is to be taken as unfounded criticism.

Brimmer implies that, myself being a practitioner before the Industrial Tribunal, I may have some sort of hidden agenda in undermining its independence.

Nothing could be further from the truth: it is in my clients’ interests to have an impartial and efficient tribunal decide their cases speedily and Brimmer’s innuendos are, sadly, typical of the type of ad hominem responses to which certain types resort when they have no arguments to make.

Brimmer’s response failed to convince in a number of areas, of which I shall highlight a few.

Firstly, his minister selected whose resignation to accept, after all Industrial Tribunal chairs except one abided by the directive to offer their resignation.

This never happened in the past (although, equally wrongly, the same process of demand and compliance occurred) and the result is that the perception of hand-picking has been given.

Secondly, the law provides only for a power on the part of the Prime Minister (and not simply a minister) to vary the panel of chairs by direct action after consultation with the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, with the additional provision that chairs whose tenure is ended shall continue to hear their pending cases.

The law does not contemplate the process adopted by the ministry, for all Brimmer’s saying that his minister acted in compliance with it.

She did not.

Thirdly, Brimmer did not address the point, for which precedent exists to guide him, had he but checked, that receivers of emoluments from the government should not decide issues involving the government.

I would have thought this would be obvious but clearly, it is not.

Fourthly, Brimmer, in his zeal to defend his minister, avoided completely the fact that when the independence of a (quasi-) judicial body is concerned, it is the perception of independence that is important rather than the actual integrity of the incumbents concerned.

I made no comment on the latter aspect because there is no need to, unlike Brimmer, who chose to highlight it a number of times.

The bottom line is that Dalli has to take responsibility for the way the Industrial Tribunal will now be perceived and attempts to shift the blame for this onto those of us who can see it are futile.