A judge has urged the court of appeal to handle with urgency any appeals in the case challenging the appointment of new members of the judiciary.
The case was instituted by civil society NGO Repubblika which is seeking to nullify judicial appointments until the government implements recommendations by the Venice Commission on the rule of law.
Last week, the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, found that Repubblika did not have a juridical interest in the issue under Maltese law but refrained from a decision about whether the case should be referred to the European Court of Justice, reserving that decision to a later date.
Repubblika is seeking to nullify the appointment of six new members of the judiciary, saying no new members should have been added to the bench until a revised system of appointments was in place.
As the case proceeded on Wednesday morning, Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti, heard submissions by Simon Busuttil, assisting the applicants, who pointed out that if the AG’s request for leave to appeal were to be upheld the appeal would drag to “the second half of the year or possibly even to next year.”
Meanwhile, the six newly-appointed members of the judiciary will “have decided hundreds of cases which could be nullified,” Dr Busuttil argued, urging the Court to assess whether the prejudice likely to be suffered by those citizens whose cases subsequently turned out to be null, weighed more heavily than the prejudice to be suffered by the government if denied leave to appeal.
“There is far greater urgency for this case to move forward and possibly to go to the European Court for a decision of the system of judicial appointments,” Dr Busuttil went on, stressing that this was “a matter of national urgency and if leave of appeal be upheld, the case will be shelved.”
Moreover, Repubblika was willing to withdraw its own appeal if the government dropped its request likewise, the court heard.
Attorney General Peter Grech countered that the scenario painted by Repubblika’s lawyer “would apply to all members of the judiciary,” adding that, “these six had nothing different from the others.”
“The administration of justice cannot grind to a halt simply because of allegations raised from time to time. The justice system must continue. Today all we have is an allegation and an allegation is just that, nothing more,” Dr Grech observed.
After hearing submissions by both parties, the Court upheld both parties’ request to appeal, declaring that such a “sensitive” issue merited direction from a superior Court, namely the Court of Appeal.
He emphasized the urgent nature of the matter at hand and requested that the appeals be treated with urgency as deemed by the Court of Appeal.
The court adjourned the case for further information to late June.