Twenty-five per cent of last Sunday's interview with the Minister of Justice dealt with the issue of the Commission of Administration of Justice and two members of the judiciary.

The interviewer grilled the minister for answers about the commission, asking him no less than 10 questions of the total 40 asked.

As the interviewer used the term 'named and shamed' with regard to the two members of the judiciary, it is worth pointing out that the commission may have named the two members but it certainly did not shame them - even if it was not for lack of trying.

My husband, Antonio Mizzi, feels no shame (and probably nor does Lino Farrugia Sacco) for contributing to society and promoting our youth through sport and keeping them healthy and out of trouble. He does this all in his free time and on a voluntary basis, while executing his judicial duties with the expediency and integrity required of his profession.

If the shame he should feel is for not abiding by a set of blinkered and obsolete guidelines drawn up some 16 years ago and since left unrevised, then one should remember that a code of ethics is not the law and as such one is not bound by it. It is there to serve as a guide for one's actions and behaviour.

It is already a contradiction in terms that members of the judiciary should have written rules on how they should behave, let alone be 'shamed' for choosing not to abide by them, as is their right.

The members of the judiciary are not supermen or women, but a particular class of our society chosen - rightly or wrongly - to stand in judgment on all of us when the occasion unfortunately arises. As such, society needs to look upon them as people of absolute integrity - as I have no doubt they are - who know how to regulate themselves in all spheres of life including in the execution of their duties.

So if there is anybody who should feel ashamed by this story it is certainly not the magistrate and judge in question. If ethics and shame are the key words to this story, the we should be concerned by other aspects which have been exposed, like a breach of the Constitution - by the commission - and the disregard of the concept of separation of powers - by the government.

Why has nothing been said or done about the fact that the commission is in breach of the parameters given it by the Constitution, and chose to disclose its confidential business to the media through a press release it furnished to the Department of Information? What is more serious: a member of the judiciary opting not to abide by a code of ethics by which he is not bound, or for the members of the commission to breach the rules imposed on them by the Constitution of the land?

The answer to this question lies in the vociferous statement made by the Attorney General - the government's lawyer - in a recent court case where he argued for the refusal of a request to disclose matters discussed by the commission in a particular case. The AG informed the court that the members of the commission are duty-bound by the Constitution to respect confidentiality in the execution of their duties. Well, in the particular case of Mizzi and Farrugia Sacco, the commission did 'otherwise' and nobody seems to mind.

There is also the involvement and interference of the government in a matter which was purely institutional in a flagrant disregard to one of the pillars of the sacred concept of democracy - separation of powers. In support to the commission, it boycotted the judge and magistrate from its functions. In the light of this interference, can Joe Citizen really go to court in cases against the government, a government entity or against any politician, particularly of the incumbent party, with the peace of mind that the judiciary has not been tempered with - by a whip or by a carrot?

And just in case, anyone thinks that Mizzi should be ashamed, the answer may be found in the statistics recently furnished by the Ministry of Justice itself with regard to the backlog of cases. His results are top of the list (save for another magistrate appointed last year).

So, if the Chief Justice intends taking sanctions against these two members of the judiciary, it will be difficult for him to avoid the perception that this was not done with a spirit of vengeance - which is the antithesis of justice.