The Chamber of Advocates yesterday took exception to comments made by Justice Minister Owen Bonnici in Parliament on court experts and their nomination by members of the judiciary.
Dr Bonnici took umbrage at comments by the Times of Malta for criticising the repeated nomination of Martin Bajada as a court expert and said in Parliament on Tuesday the expert should not be crucified for being found guilty of fraud and theft 23 years ago.
“I am not here to defend Dr Bajada’s nominations because to me it doesn’t make a difference if he is nominated or not,” Dr Bonnici said. “However, what I can say is that he is very efficient,” he added, saying somebody who erred should be given a second chance.
He denied the Chamber of Advocates had said there was a racket in the way court experts were being nominated by the Judiciary.
The lack of transparency in these nominations is alarming
The Chamber of Advocates said in a statement yesterday that though this was not a personal issue (against any court expert) such court officials, like members of the judiciary, should be beyond reproach.
“The Chamber agrees that, in general, everyone should be given the opportunity of rehabilitation,” it said. However, it added, this did not mean that when one rehabilitated oneself, one should occupy public posts, such as that of a court expert. The benchmark of court experts should be much higher than those of any other citizen, it insisted.
Reiterating that all court officials should be people of high integrity, the lawyers’ representative body called for a decision by the Court of Appeal on Dr Bajada to be observed by all members of the judiciary with immediate effect.
Dr Bajada, who obtained a warrant to practise as a lawyer about five years ago, has been serving as court expert for many years even though, in 1993, he had pleaded guilty to 10 counts of theft and was handed a two-year suspended jail sentence by a UK court. His criminal conviction had been known in court circles and the matter had also been communicated to the Commission for the Administration of Justice.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed a technical report drawn up by Dr Bajada and ruled that his integrity was a problem. Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done, the court commented.
According to Dr Bonnici, over the past six years, Dr Bajada received more than €500,000 for his expertise to various members of the Judiciary.
The lawyers’ representative body had spoken of a “racket” in a 2013 position paper on the system of how members of the judiciary appoint experts. It called for a radical change in the system. Since then, only cosmetic changes have been made and recommendations by a commission presided over by former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello have so far remained unimplemented.
The Chamber spoke of an impenetrable system where what mattered most was the relationship of prospective court experts with police inspectors and magistrates.
“The lack of transparency in these nominations is alarming,” the Chamber of Advocates had warned.
ivan.camilleri@timesofmalta.com