In the Sunday Times’ interview with the Minister of Justice (When Justice gets rough, STOM, 6 July), Steve Mallia brought up the issue of the Commission of Administration of Justice (CAJ) and the two members of the judiciary. 25% of this interview was taken up by this issue, with the interviewer grilling the Minister for answers about the Commission and asking him no less than 10 questions of the total 40 asked. The questions were evidently loaded and intended to draw blood, but the Minister replied diplomatically to Steve Mallia’s questions and gave very little away.
As the interviewer used the term ‘named and shamed’ with regards to the two members of the judiciary, it is worth pointing out that the CAJ may have named the two members but it certainly did not shame them – even if it were not for lack of their trying. My husband, Tonio Mizzi, feels no shame (and probably neither does Lino Farrugia Sacco) for contributing to society and promoting our youth through sport and keeping them healthy and out of trouble as sport is meant to do – 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 that Tonio Mizzi should feel is for not abiding with 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 not choosing to abide by them as it is their right to do. The members of the judiciary are no supermen or women, but they are a particular class of our society chosen – rightly or wrongly – to stand in judgment on all of us when this occasion unfortunately arises. As such society needs to look upon this group as persons of absolute integrity – as I am in no doubt all of them are – who know how to regulate themselves in all spheres of life including in the execution of their duties. If there are persons amongst this group, who need to be regulated by a written code of ethics to know what behaviour is expected of them, then they are in the wrong job.
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, then a law-savvy person like Steve Mallia, might have been concerned by other aspects which have been exposed, like, the breach of the Constitution of Malta – by the CAJ – and the disregard of the concept of separation of powers – by the Government.
In this regard, other important questions to the Minister could have been put, such as: Why has nothing been said or done about the fact that the CAJ is in breach of the parameters given it by the Constitution of Malta, and chose to disclose its confidential business to the media through a press release it furnished to the DOI? 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 CAJ 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 CAJ in a particular case. The AG informed the Court that the members of the CAJ are duty bound by the Constitution to respect confidentiality in the execution of their duties and would be in breach of the Constitution, if they did otherwise. Well, in the particular case of Tonio Mizzi and Lino Farrugia Sacco, the CAJ did ‘otherwise’ and nobody seems to mind. So I suppose one is not blamed to think that it’s OK to breach the Constitution occasionally…but don’t you dare not abide with a set of written rules.
Another reply that could have been requested from the Minister of Justice concerns 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 CAJ, the Government boycotted the judge and magistrate from its functions.
Now, apart from the fact that this request for support shows the ‘toothlessness’ of the tiger, interference in the form of boycotting of the two members of the judiciary from the Government’s parties has exposed a far more serious aspect than not allowing these two persons to partake of the fun at these functions (sic!). It has exposed the fact that, just as a politician could crack the whip to chastise or intimidate the judiciary, so can he/she dangle the carrot when need be. And this is very serious indeed. The Government (under the previous Minister of Justice, one has to say) should have never interfered in institutional matters of the third arm of the State. This is exactly what separation of powers is all about and it is only by upholding this concept that the citizen can be assured of the sacred concept of democracy.
In the light this has thrown, can Joe Citizen really go to Court in cases against the Government, against 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? The answer to this is in the minds and hearts of each and every one of us. The truth is, that like in the Republic of Bonga Bonga, the Constitution has been breached, the concept of separation of powers has been flouted, and nobody batted an eye.
And just in case, anyone thinks that Tonio Mizzi should be ashamed for contributing through sport, for the past 20 years without anyone – including the CAJ – ever pointing a finger at his performance, efficiency, capability or integrity of behavior in his work at Court, the answer may be found in the statistics recently furnished by the Ministry of Justice itself with regards to the level of backlog of cases where Tonio Mizzi results top of the list with the least number of pending cases (save for another magistrate appointed last year).
So, if the Chief Justice intends taking sanctions on these two members of the judiciary by redistributing their work and chooses to show his teeth in this way, as hinted he might do by the Minister of Justice in his interview, it is going to be very difficult for the Chief Justice to persuade the public and the legal profession of the integrity of such decision.
It will be very difficult for the Chief Justice to waive the perception that this was not done with a spirit of vengeance on these two persons. And vengeance, being the antithesis of justice, is not what Joe Citizen expects our Courts to hand down, especially from the holder of such onerous a title as that of Chief Justice!

This opinion piece appears in its entirety after it was first submitted to The Sunday Times with substantial parts of the article censored.