I read with interest Magistrate Giovanni Grixti's very public reply to information released by the Justice Ministry on the number of pending criminal inquiries before the Magistrates' Court and before which particular magistrate the said inquiries were assigned to. The ministry merely gave the relevant statistics, which statistics, however, unduly and unfairly embarrassed the said magistrate because they made him appear inefficient.
The statistics revealed that pending before Magistrate Grixti there was the considerable amount of over 200 inquiries still waiting to be concluded. The point, however, was, that the absolute majority of these inquiries were inherited by the said magistrate from a colleague who had retired some time previously. Magistrate Grixti felt compelled not only to clarify his position, but, more so, to rebuke his former colleague. According to the said reply these inquiries were being conducted in a confusing and unruly fashion apart from the fact of having been outstanding for long periods before the former magistrate. This state of affairs logically made it exceedingly difficult for the new magistrate to finish off expeditiously this overbearing backlog.
The information released by the ministry, therefore, indirectly appeared to castigate and publicly embarrass the magistrate unfairly. To my mind, the ministry and the minister were morally and ethically bound to explain what has been stated and not solely give out the number of pending inquiries since they should have easily been aware of the truth behind the matter.
All this brings the issue of ministerial accountability to the forefront.
Magistrates rarely, if ever, publicly comment on their work. Traditionally, therefore, the members of the judiciary have often had to suffer in silence unjust criticism and uncalled for political outbursts. There is, however, a limit to all this, especially when someone ends up taking the blame for somebody else's omissions.
As a rule, the vast majority of the members of our judiciary are competent, diligent and hard-working. One of the most important roles the Minister of Justice has to play in our judicial system is to advise the Prime Minister on the appointment of members of the Bench. Here, unlike elsewhere, such appointments are the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister and such decisions are taken discretionally without the advice of any select committee or commission. Thus, even here, if the minister capriciously gives the wrong advice, for some reason or another, in the selection of members of the judiciary, he should be held politically accountable. Such wrong decisions adversely affect the administration of justice in no small fashion.
There have been instances where appointments to the Bench were solely politically motivated without much thought being given to the appointees' credentials and the result of such decisions are well known in legal circles though, perhaps, they are among the best-kept secrets.
Judicial appointments are among the most important choices in the country because they relate to one of the three organs of the state. Furthermore, such decisions, erroneous or not, are practically irreversible due to the security of tenure justly guaranteed to our judiciary by the Constitution. Definitely, therefore, the minister concerned should have much to answer for politically if his decisions are manifestly flawed and he should have to carry the brunt of the consequences of his actions.
It is therefore perhaps time, even on the suggestion of the present Chief Justice, to create an advisory board, independent of the political spectrum, which could guide the government when this comes to fill vacancies in the judiciary.
In truth it must be pointed out that, at the end of the day, it does not merely suffice to upgrade in the best way possible our laws of civil procedure, thereby creating the necessary legal framework to expeditiously deal with cases. In the final analysis, it is only the calibre and suitability of the members of the judiciary that can guarantee the best form of due process. In truth and in substance, it is the judiciary that can guarantee justice.
Dr Herrera is shadow minister for justice.