Imagine standing outside the imposing Auberge de Castille, Malta’s Ministry of Finance, on a bustling Republic Street. The grand building, once a Knights’ hospice, now echoes with political debates and budget announcements. But what about the other side of the street, the humble Constitutional Court? How does politics influence the judiciary that’s meant to stand above it all?

Political Appointments: The Elephant in the Room

Malta’s judiciary is appointed by the Prime Minister, a system that raises eyebrows among legal experts. “It’s like having the referee of a football match chosen by one of the teams,” says Dr. Kevin Aquilina, a constitutional lawyer. The current system allows for political influence, with the Prime Minister selecting judges from a list provided by the independent Judicial Appointments Committee.

Take the case of Judge Giovanni Grixti, appointed by former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi in 2008. Grixti was later found to have made racist remarks, leading to his removal in 2019. The case highlighted the need for a more strong vetting process, but the political appointment system remains unchanged.

Legislative Changes: A Step Backwards?

In 2016, the government amended the Judiciary Act, increasing the retirement age of judges from 65 to 68. While this might seem innocuous, it raised concerns about political interference. Critics argue that it allows governments to extend the tenure of judges they favor.

the same amendment gave the Prime Minister the power to extend the term of the Chief Justice by two years. This power, wielded by a politician, could potentially undermine the independence of the judiciary, argues Dr. Aquilina.

The Egrant Inquiry: A Test of Judicial Independence

The Egrant inquiry, led by Judge Michael Mallia, was a test of judicial independence. The inquiry, set up to investigate claims that the Prime Minister’s wife owned a secret company, was criticized for its slow pace and lack of progress. Some saw it as a political tool to delay and dilute the impact of the Panama Papers revelations.

Judge Mallia’s eventual report, released in 2018, cleared the Prime Minister and his family of any wrongdoing. However, the process left many questioning the independence of the judiciary in politically sensitive cases.

Malta’s judiciary faces a delicate balancing act. It must maintain its independence while operating within a political system that can exert influence. As Malta continues to grapple with its political scandals and corruption allegations, the strength and independence of its judiciary will be crucial.

“The judiciary must be seen to be independent, not just in theory, but in practice. It’s not just about the law, it’s about public perception,” says Dr. Aquilina. As we look ahead, it’s vital that Malta’s political leaders and legal experts engage in a strong dialogue to strengthen the judiciary’s independence and restore public trust.