While many are enjoying their summer holidays, the executive is busy manoeuvring from left to right and left to right to stay in pole position. A case in point was last week’s nomination of Dr Wenzu Mintoff to the judiciary bench. Wenzu turned Lawrence. My guess of the name change was to give notice to all that Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff is forthwith a completely different person since wearing his new judicial responsibilities.
Before I continue with my line of thought, I ought to let you know that I hardly know Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff. I have formed my opinion about Dr WenzuMintoff from various media reports since he was actively involved in the political fray.
From now on it is not in his defence nor is it against his appointment but against those who decided to appoint Dr Wenzu Mintoff to the bench.
For those who want to see the reasoning behind Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff’s appointment it is clear enough. It stands to reason now. This appointment goes against the spirit of the judiciary reform. It seems that the Executive wanted to appease Dr Wenzu Mintoff before the judiciary reform is implemented. This decision has unnecessarily exposed him to criticism from various quarters denting further the credibility of the judiciary.
Sections of the media described the appointment of Mr Justice Mintoff as not appropriate. Others exclaimed surprise. Some comments on the social media were in bad taste. Some even went as far as to include his uncle, the late Dom Mintoff and other close relatives. Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff is not answerable for the doings of other members of his family. I do not share that line of assessment.
What I find rather distressing is not the appointment of Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff to the bench. I will not be the Mr Justice of that. Whether the new judge is up to scratch is to the collective responsibility of the executive. They have to shoulder that responsibility in the event Mr Justice Mintoff is found not to be suitable for the post. They will have to deal with the issue, but let’s not jump the gun and hope for the best for the credibility of our judiciary
As I stated earlier, I have no problem with his appointment, but I take exception to the misleading information, about Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff, which purposely excluded his active involvement in the political arena. Until recently Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff was acting as editor of the PL Sunday newspaper KulHadd also.
I am convinced that the omission was not erroneous but deliberate. The DOI press release issued a day before Dr WenzuMintoff was sworn in as Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff should raise many questions. Half-truth is much worse than a whole lie. It makes it even harder to tell the difference between the two. That is a serious offence and should be followed and rectified.
It was wrong for the DOI public officers to take the liberty and exclude important parts from the Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff CV which included active participation in partisan politics. The Department of Information has no right to misguide people and try to give the general public the impression that Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff was detached from the political fray. He was certainly actively involved. Whether this had to preclude him from taking the post of a Mr Justice is a completely different argument.
Those responsible from the drafting of the misleading issued press release must have been politically motivated. Public Service officials should ensure that information is proper and in good faith. As far as I can understand the Department of Information is not an extension of the PL public relations office. The DOI should not act as the mouthpiece of the PL.
Unfortunately, while writing I have received another press release issued from the DOI. Unless I am wrong, the DOI seems to have taken the functions of the mouthpiece of the PL. The press release in question was issued by the DOI on Friday, 18th July in reply to Dr Simon Busuttil’s speech in Parliament the day before. The DOI press release had the rudeness to state “The only way that the Leader of the Opposition can be positive is by not speaking." This is an affront addressed not to the Leader of the Opposition only but to all citizens. Public Officers drafting press releases should know that there are clear demarcation lines between the activities of a political party and the doings of the Executive. These should be observed at all times.
The PL is manifestly showing that they are capable of entertaining people who have contributed towards the party in the past. Whether this is the right approach or whether this appointment is in the best interest of the judiciary is questionable. This, appointment, is more or less on the same rational wherein others have been appointed to various positions on the basis of their political viewpoints.
Indeed, people entering in the political arena with a frame of mind to improve the quality of life of others are praiseworthy and should not be excluded from taking various positions. Only those who enter into politics to serve themselves should be despised. If people remain silent in the face of these episodes, society will have to pay a heftier price sooner or later for their silence.
[email protected]