Malta's judiciary is losing the services of two top judges: The Chief Justice, Vincent De Gaetano, will take up his new role as the Maltese judge at the European Court of Human Rights later this year; and Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono presided over his last case on Wednesday upon reaching the age of compulsory retirement.

These two men have different methods and characters. The Chief Justice has a professorial-like demeanour - studious, academic and impeccably proper - while Judge Galea Debono bulldozed his way through a backlog of cases and gave some pretty stiff sentences along the way.

However, these judges are bound by certain fundamental characteristics. They possess an unquenchable desire to serve, administer and uphold justice. And just as importantly, they have had unshakeable integrity.

This has proved to be of particular significance since they were both appointed to their respective posts after the 2002 judges' scandal which had left the Maltese judiciary writhing in pain, bloodied in the gutter. Through their words, deeds and reputation they have managed to heal many of the wounds and restore a large slice of credibility.

However, it is because of this fact that their loss - especially with them leaving at virtually the same time - will be all the more difficult for the country to take. While there are other sound members of the judiciary and hopefully some very good candidates to take their places, there are others who are not doing the bench so proud.

There are members of the judiciary who needlessly humiliate those who appear before them, a scourge of the Maltese courts that is rarely, if ever, seen in the countries whose legal systems we like to compare ourselves to; there are members who do things in a manner that is not befitting of the position they hold; and there are those who continually defer cases or do not apply themselves as they should when it comes to hearing them.

A minority, perhaps. But one is too many in a profession like this. Something needs to be done to address misbehaviour even if, for a variety of reasons, doing this in Malta is exceedingly difficult.

In England and Wales, over 170 members of the judiciary have been disciplined (some were forced to resign) over the past 10 years for misdeeds ranging from falling asleep during a trial to refusing to sit in a case because a Muslim woman would not remove a veil.

Without prejudice to the independence of the judiciary, action is taken by the Lord Chief Justice or the Justice Secretary if judges are found to have misbehaved in the courtroom or if their personal conduct "tarnishes the reputation of the judiciary". Malta's Commission for the Administration of Justice is not adequately serving this purpose.

But there is another point related to the quality of our judiciary too; and that is why do they have to retire, as Judge Galea Debono did, on turning 65?

Should we not be able to hold on to our good judges a while longer? The legendary Lord Denning, who was over 80 when he stepped down, once remarked that some of his judgments of greatest value were given after he turned 75, for example.

Seventy-five is probably excessive, but the very least we can do is raise the retirement age to 70 - which is the limit imposed on judges in several countries as well as at the European Court of Human Rights. Rather ironically, the great minds that leave our shores, like Giovanni Bonello and the current Chief Justice, are all given this opportunity to stay on while those who remain here are not.