Judicial appointments: Choose wisely, Minister

Every administration is routinely accused of placing ‘friendly’ people on the benches of the judiciary but the current administration has taken this to a whole new level.

We have, by now, become used to the way this government pushes ahead with controversial appointments, despite the harsh criticism by the Opposition, the Chamber of Advocates and society in general.

We have witnessed how these controversial appointments lead to legal wrangles and massive delays, as witnessed in the recent case filed by former Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil against Mr Justice (now retired) Antonio Mizzi. That case – an appeal on the now defunct Panama Papers inquiry request – was appealed by Busuttil on the grounds that Mizzi is married to a Labour MEP and could not possibly seem to be impartial.

Instead of learning from past mistakes and trying to avoid similar situations in the future, the government now seems to be intent on approving another, even more controversial, judicial appointment.

We are speaking, of course, about the impending appointment to Magistrate of Nadine Lia, who happens to be the daughter-in-law of the Labour Party’s legal eagle – Pawlu Lia.

A few weeks ago, The Malta Independent on Sunday revealed that Lia would be made Magistrate. This week it was also reported that Magistrates Francesco Depasquale and Yana Micallef Stafrace will be bumped up to judges.

We will say this right from the start – this is not an attack on Nadine Lia’s integrity or professionalism. We have heard positive comments about her. But the issue here goes way beyond her personal abilities and integrity.

The fact that she is so closely related to someone who is not only the Labour Party’s main legal advisor, but also the government’s representative on the Commission for the Administration of Justice and the Prime Minister’s personal lawyer (remember the Egrant debacle?) makes her unsuitable for the job.

In other European countries, it is unheard of for a person with such an affiliation to be put up for the role of magistrate.

The Opposition has so far not commented on the issue, although it will inevitably do so.

Lawyers themselves are now up in arms over this rumoured appointment, which has been practically confirmed by the Justice Minister. Those who spoke to this newspaper have said that they could boycott sittings presided over by Lia if she were to be appointed to the position, adding that they could even bring the matter before the Constitutional Courts. They say they feel that Lia cannot possibly be seen to be unbiased, in view of the close relationship her fatherin-law has with the Prime Minister, the government and the Labour Party.

Now this is a very serious threat. We cannot have a situation where politically loaded cases or inquiries that end up before Nadine Lia are challenged in the superior courts, leading to months – if not years – of delays. We simply cannot see the Panama Papers/Antonio Mizzi recusal case happen over and over again.

What is worse is that, this week, sources in the Chamber of Advocates told this newspaper that the Chamber had been left completely in the dark over the upcoming appointments. When quizzed about this, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici insisted that all three candidates had been approved by the Judicial Appointments Committee – the body that shortlists candidates for the minister to choose from – adding that the Chamber of Advocates was part of this Committee.

In a recent interview the Justice Minister also told us that, after an upcoming reform, the government would no longer be involved in the appointment of new members of the judiciary, who will be appointed by their peers. But it seems that, until then, the government intends to continue making political appointments.

This, it has been argued, will taint the current system, because the people choosing new members of the judiciary from within their own ranks in the future will have all been strategically chosen by the government before the reform actually happens.

This means that the government is, with its current actions, undermining the impartiality of a system that has yet to be put in place.

As things stand, the Judicial Appointments Committee draws up a shortlist and the Minister then has the task of approving or rejecting the candidates. In essence, the Minister has the final say and full power over who is elevated to the bench.

But the Minister also has the power to use good sense and reject appointments that are simply over the top, and that can lead to serious legal implications, delays and perceptions of bias and conflicts of interest in the courts of law.

Choose wisely, Minister.