The issue regarding the retirement age of judges has come up again. I have had various occasions, now and again, to dwell on this issue and, for the moment, I stop there.
In relation to this matter, however, I lately had occasion to socially encounter an American judge who generously took the time to discuss with me various aspects of the workings of the American judiciary, which, to my mind, is one of the best functioning in the world.
It transpires that in many states in America today there exists a retiring age limit, which usually is of about 75 years. This notwithstanding, there subsists a system they refer to as “recall”, a system I think is worth considering for potential introduction even here in Malta notwithstanding the fact that our system of administration of justice is perhaps one of the more conservative.
No doubt, there are certain factors that contribute more than others to the enduring backlog of court cases. Occasionally, a particular case could prove to be so intricate and would carry with it such import that the presiding judge would have to dedicate a lot of time to it and this, obviously, to the detriment of other work.
Similarly, cases which would have been pending before the courts for a very long time tend to be overstepped by judges who would, at times, find it difficult to get to grips with those particular proceedings.
It is no secret that a considerable part of the backlog consists of old cases. In the US, in such instances, the Chief Justice has the authority to recall judges from their retirement to handle such types of cases, and this to promote the smooth running of the courts. Undoubtedly, these judges, who would not have other cases to hear and decide upon, would be in the best position to concentrate on such particular cumbersome cases and, thereby, facilitate the general administration of justice. In Malta, there are a number of experienced and well-respected retired members of the judiciary who could be well utilised in this fashion. I must refrain from further commenting in this respect and to move at a tangent and take the opportunity to refer to the passing away of President Emeritus Guido de Marco, whom I’ve known for a very long time and whom I used to respect a great deal.
I have reflected in depth as to what particular attribute he might have had which eventually made him highly respected on both sides of the political spectrum. Over the years, this firebrand politician learned how to tone down and how to become always more reconciliatory and, finally, as head of state, perhaps against all odds, managed to be super partes.
Experience taught him a lot of things and he would occasionally share them with us younger politicians. On one particular occasion, I had the opportunity to carry out a long conversation with Prof. de Marco and he taught me something very important. He explained that, as a politician, I should desist as much as possible from attacking the singer and always limit my criticism to the song. That was Prof. de Marco, the parliamentarian I remember.
He was always there ready to contribute criticism even fiercely, at times, but he would always abstain in a gentlemanly manner from demeaning his adversaries in a personal fashion. This was surely one of his major attributes that allowed him to win over, at the end, universal admiration.
As a statesman, Prof. de Marco reminds me a lot of Cicero. It is recalled that, after Cicero was declared consul elect, and this after long years of campaigning and an extensive and illustrious career and after the celebrations were duly over, he lay back on one of his couches in the company of his trusted secretary, Tiro. At one point, he turned to his secretary and asked him: “How will posterity judge us, Tiro? That is the only question for a statesman. But before it can judge us, it must first remember who we are.”
In Prof. de Marco’s case, we all know who he was; that friendly, approachable great politician – Pater Patriae, and, yes, posterity will definitely judge him positively.
Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.