An efficient, effective, contented and motivated judiciary is a key pillar of any liberal democracy. Yet, for the last few years the evidence has been accumulating that all is not well with the Maltese judiciary. The wheels of justice have been clogged.
The quality of some judges and magistrates has been called into question and, as the Chamber of Advocates forcefully pointed out last year, “members of the judiciary are not accountable”. The Commission for the Administration of Justice, under the President, has a woefully limited role and appeared, like the Chief Justice, to be toothless.
The situation has been compounded by rumblings of discontent among members of the judiciary about what might broadly be termed their terms and conditions of service, including pay and retirement ages.
Against this unhappy background, the news that Justice Minister Chris Said is negotiating a range of changes to the pay, pensions and conditions of service of judges and magistrates has caught the public interest – and not always in a positive way. Enough information is now in the public domain to see the general shape of the package of improvements the government is offering.
The broad thrust is that in return for salary and pension improvements, judges and magistrates will make productivity and efficiency improvements to the administration of justice.
An increase in allowances of €12,000 to all judges and magistrates, staggered over three years (taking their pay to about €62,500 and €57,000 respectively), is being proposed. From October 1, the law courts will work to a diary system under which all cases will be appointed and heard by a specific time and date. The Commission for the Administration of Justice will be given new powers to censure recalcitrant judges and magistrates.
Some of the proposals on the table will require the support in Parliament of the Opposition if they are to obtain the two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution. Others, like the introduction of afternoon sittings, have already drawn criticism from lawyers and the Chamber of Advocates on grounds of impracticability in the light of the intrinsic deficiencies of the court infrastructure.
But the issue which has captured the public’s attention is the proposed future award of an ‘uncapped’ pension of two thirds of their actual salary in line with that given to members of Parliament.
This proposal has raised not a few eyebrows and stoked public anger. The award to themselves of this special privilege by ministers and parliamentarians who have served for five years still rankles. To extend this divisive and discriminatory concession to another group of public servants, none of whom is held in particularly high regard, at a time when the rest of the population – pensioners in particular – is struggling to make ends meet seems crass.
Quite apart from the unhealthy precedent that such a move will signal (if judges and magistrates today, why not the Police Commissioner and senior civil servants tomorrow?), the man in the street will see this change as unfair and inequitable – a case of two weights and two measures.
At a time when the future sustainability of Malta’s pensions has come under EU scrutiny, it seems ill-timed to be offering such a concession. To pursue this course would be a grievous error of political judgement, as well as fundamentally unfair and inappropriate. The government should think again.