The Commission for the Administration of Justice (CAJ) has seen fit, for reasons it knows best, to disclose correspondence between itself and two members of the judiciary, namely Magistrate Tonio Mizzi and Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco .
It wished to inform all and sundry that it has drawn the attention of these two members of the Maltese judiciary that their being officers of a sports organisation “could affect the trust conferred by their appointment…” and to the fact that that these appointments may be a failure on their part “to abide by any code or codes of ethics relating to (them)”.
The CAJ chose to go public knowing perfectly well that there was no equality of arms, as the judge and the magistrate, as members of the judiciary, cannot make use of the media to rebut comments in their regards.
I am married to Magistrate Mizzi and if you are thinking that this article is in defence of my husband, then you are right. It is. And if anybody out there does not like the idea, then I invite them to stop reading and turn to other articles printed in this newspaper and which they may find to be more palatable. Other readers may be interested in an issue which has by far more serious connotations than whether Tonio Mizzi should be a Magistrate as well as the President of the Malta Basketball Association or not. They will also learn that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with ethics, but with a name and shame exercise embarked upon for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of justice.
The Allied Press dedicated no fewer than five contributions in less than two weeks, including two leaders in six days. Each contribution, except for Talking Point by Dr Austin Bencini (Times 12 November) smacked of lack of knowledge of what the situation really is. Adding more fuel to the fire, the unnamed person who wrote in the page dedicated to “Religion” under A Christian Outlook – (STOM 12 November - Ethical Behaviour of the Judiciary) saw fit to exercise Christian spirit by condemning these two persons in language which has seen them already hung, drawn and quartered. The unsigned article called the stand taken by the judge and the magistrate as “scandalous”, and called for justice to be done. The piece of literature which adorned the religious section of the STOM reeked heavily of a vulture getting a turn-on at the smell of blood. And since when does the administration of justice – a civil matter – fall within the realm of “Religion”? I could almost hear cries of glee: “Crucify them! Crucify them!” A very Christian outlook indeed.
The most interesting sentence in this Christian article may have unintentionally let the cat out of the bag. The second paragraph started thus: “A most serious situation has been created…”. A Freudian slip no doubt, as the situation was certainly “created”, and the reasons for so doing are not at all transparent.
The CAJ chose to inform the media of a letter indicating breach of ethics by the two members of the judiciary. The letter written to my husband, Tonio Mizzi, was sent to him on 7 August 2007, that is, more than three months ago. Now, if the honourable members of the CAJ thought it fit and proper that the general public should be made aware of the grave danger that the judge and magistrate are inflicting on society, why did they wait until now to do so? Like all actions this has caused reactions. Local and international sports organisations – the MOC, the MBA, FIBA (the international basketball federation) and the European Olympic Committees – have publicly condemned this uncalled-for attack on these two very respected members in the sports field, both in Malta and abroad.
The disclosure of the contents of this letter has now raised questions - questions which for the sake of honour and integrity should be answered.

1. Why did the CAJ publish this correspondence? And why now and not before? Has the fact that Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco recently displeased the Chief Justice and member of the CAJ, by reporting a particular case, have anything to do with it? I am not exactly the government’s blue-eyed-girl – for reasons everyone knows – and the fact I am married to Magistrate Mizzi may have something to do with the sudden pangs of conscience from the Commission for the Administration of Justice? Why pick on these two particular individuals when many other persons have appeared in front of the commission?

2. Was it ethical for the CAJ to disclose PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL correspondence between itself and members of the judiciary?
The meetings with the CAJ on this matter, which have been going on for these past months were neither an investigation nor disciplinary procedures taken against these two persons. The brief of the CAJ “…is to draw the attention of any judge or magistrate on any matter which may not be conducive to and efficient and proper functioning of such court.” Nowhere in the correspondence with Magistrate Mizzi, including the published document, has there ever been the slightest hint from the CAJ that his court work was either inefficient or not functioning properly. I am sure the same applies to Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco. Yet the CAJ persisted in harassing these two members of the judiciary in the function of what they do in private, notwithstanding that this does not impinge on their Courts.

3. Would it not have been right and proper for the CAJ to inform these two persons beforehand that they were going to go public with this correspondence, instead of letting them learn of this backhand manoeuvre from the media? If the answer is no, then the CAJ and I have very different definitions of correctness and integrity of behavior – and coming from the seat of ethics and justice itself, this is a very serious failing indeed. If the answer is yes, then a public apology, for disclosing private discussions and correspondence, is due.

4. Now that the CAJ has published private correspondence between the judge and the magistrate, (while knowing that, as members of the judiciary, they cannot reply back through the media) will it do likewise with all of its other cases, past and present?
There are other members of the judiciary and members of the legal profession who had issues discussed with the CAJ. If the answer is yes, than the CAJ is a modern version of the Inquisitor of the members of the legal profession. If no, then the CAJ has knowingly discriminated against two individuals for reasons which can never be good news for the transparency, justice and integrity we expect from all the members of the CAJ.

Just as important as the above questions, this action by the CAJ has sent a very disturbing message to the general public with regards to all the members of the Bench. It is telling the general public that our members of the judiciary are incapable of distinguishing those cases where they should abstain from hearing due to a number of reasons, one of which is conflict of interest. It is telling the general public that the CAJ does not have the faith and trust that we all have that our judiciary is made up of correct, upstanding individuals who use their wisdom and sense of integrity to decide when they are not the right person to sit in judgment on particular cases. The Commission for the Administration of Justice has itself served a very grave injustice to our Courts. A very ugly shadow has been unfairly cast on all the members of the judiciary, who seem to need the guiding light of the CAJ to know right from wrong – or so the CAJ seems to think.
But let’s take the issue in question. Tonio Mizzi has been a magistrate for 20 years. During these 20 years at the Bench, there was never one single instance where a finger was pointed in his direction for not fulfilling his duties or not abiding by his oath of office. Tonio Mizzi was already a club president when he was appointed magistrate 20 years ago. In 1996 he was elected President of the Malta Basketball Association, where his only interest was the promotion of sports in the belief that sports is the way to keep young people away from trouble, drugs and crime. This was done on a purely voluntary basis. None of his sport activities have ever impinged on his court work - either in terms of quantity or quality. Otherwise, no doubt the CAJ would have pointed this out. In fact if this were the case, the CAJ would have been right. Therefore, picking on this person now and for no tangible reason, is indeed very strange, to put it politely.
There is something called innate integrity – that integrity that comes from within us and is not found written in books and codes of ethics. It is not even found in the laws of the land as one cannot legislate for integrity. I have no doubt that the absolute majority of our members of the judiciary are gifted with this innate integrity which, apart from the written law, guides them through their onerous task of sitting in judgment over others.
The members of the judiciary do not live in a bubble and one does not have to be a president of this or that to have conflict of interest. Each judge and magistrate has friends, relatives, acquaintances, neighbours, friends of sons and daughters; everyone goes to parties and weddings and mixes with the members of society, some of whom may appear in front of the judge or magistrate the very next day. This does not mean that the judge or magistrate in question is not capable of exercising his/her innate sense of integrity and know when to abstain from hearing a case, and when to carry on, even when the relationship is not a public one.
It is our belief in this sense of integrity in our judiciary which makes society believe that justice is found in our Courts. It is this integrity which the CAJ has dented and undermined by categorically assuming that Tonio Mizzi and Lino Farrugia Sacco cannot exercise their judicial duties properly just because they are also officers of sports organisations, and that this, according to them, may affect the trust conferred upon them by their appointment. The fact that these two men have honoured their oath of office impeccably for all these years, and that they exercised both their posts in sports and their duties in the judiciary with great integrity – as many years have proven – is of course a silly detail of no value at all to the CAJ.
On the other hand, the fact that questions are being raised about the CAJ’s unprecedented and uncalled for public attack on the judge and the magistrate is no credit to these custodians of justice. This fact has been highlighted by Dr Austin Bencini, an expert in Constitutional Law (Justice at loggerheads, The Times , 12 November), who points out that the CAJ has very limited powers as far as the members of the judiciary are concerned, as the judiciary is answerable only to Parliament and to nobody else. Now, surely the learned members of the CAJ knew this fact as well as Dr Bencini, considering that it is made up of members of the legal profession including the Chief Justice himself. So why initiate this apparent name-and-shame campaign against these two members of the judiciary when they knew that their powers are limited to “drawing attention”?
The vibes of many is that, as things have developed, there could be a hidden agenda behind this move. God forbid! Does the CAJ not have anything of more serious nature to waste its time upon? Does Joe Citizen really care whether Tonio Mizzi likes basketball or not, once Tonio Mizzi’s hobby does not impinge on his judicial duties, as has never done?
With the decision to make this issue public, the CAJ has gone beyond its powers to “draw the attention” and embarked on what seems like an exercise in harassment and intimidation. If Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco and Magistrate Tonio Mizzi will be broken into subordination when they have, in actual fact, done nothing wrong, and notwithstanding having always behaved with integrity and correctness in their appointment as members of the judiciary, it will be bad news indeed… not only for the present and future members of the judiciary , but for the very independence and serenity we all want our judiciary to be able to exercise.
The CAJ may have named Magistrate Tonio Mizzi and Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, but perhaps its members have shamed themselves in the process by having shown the lack of justice and ethics for which they should be the prime example. People in glass houses…