President of the Law Commission Franco Debono has criticized the current and previous administrations for not implementing the proposals he put forward in 2011 on the way members of the judiciary are appointed.

Speaking to The Malta Independent on Sunday, Dr Debono’s comments come after the controversial nominations of Dr Ingrid Zammit Young and Dr Caroline Farrugia Frendo for the post of magistrate last week.

Dr Zammit Young has since withdrawn her appointment due to the fact that over the last three years she has formed part of the Employment Commission, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

The Commission for the Administration of Justice, which was asked by the Opposition to review the legality of the appointment of Dr Zammit Young, clearly said that it is in breach of the Constitution.

In the case of Dr Farrugia Frendo, her appointment is also currently in breach of the Constitution because the seven years’ experience as lawyer required for the post will not be reached until 23 February, when she is conveniently supposed to be sworn in.

 

Nothing has been done by the PN nor the PL - Debono

“It is very disappointing that no proposals have been implemented four years after I presented, for the first time in Parliament (Private Member’s motion 8th November 2011), concrete and detailed proposals about the required changes needed when appointing judges and magistrates. The proposals also included a review of the years and experience required for eligibility and raising the retirement age within the ambit of a wide-ranging holistic justice reform, but still nothing had and has been done by both administrations,” he said.

“In addition to this, the proposals were not implemented in the last year of the PN administration, and neither have they been implemented after three years of a PL administration.”

With regard to the report published by the chair of the Justice Reform Commission Judge Giovanni Bonello, which also outlines changes needed in the appointment of members to the judiciary, Dr Debono said: “The Bonello Report not only added little or nothing to the proposals, it also acknowledged the proposals that had been made earlier in the Committee I used to preside.

“So it is very worrying that after more than four years since my Private Member’s motion about major reforms in Justice and Home Affairs placed the issue on the parliamentary agenda, nothing has materialised in this regard. Other proposals of the same motion have been implemented.”

Turning to his work as chair of the Commission for Constitutional Awareness, Dr Debono said that the current controversy highlights the need for more constitutional awareness. It was the Opposition, the media and the Chamber of Advocates who highlighted the irregularities of such appointments.

“The recent controversy shows the importance of the Committee for Constitutional Awareness, which I had conceived, proposed and am now chairing, due to the fact that not only does the general public not seem to be sufficiently informed about constitutional matters, as emerged from the recent survey, but politicians also seem to be unaware of certain important constitutional provisions, otherwise at least one nomination would not have been made.

“Moreover, this controversy further illustrates the urgency to implement these reforms and more. It also highlights the need to assemble as soon as possible the Constitutional Convention if it is going to be the designated forum within which these reforms, which are of a constitutional nature par excellence, are to be debated.”

Dr Debono then spoke of the unfortunate position the two lawyers have been put in, a sentiment echoed yesterday morning in a radio programme presented by Andrew Azzopardi:

“It is very unfortunate that two lawyers known for their integrity have been uselessly dragged into this controversy, which could have been avoided by the exercise of more diligence, prudence and a sense of equity and justice,” Dr Debono told listeners.

He added it is “concerning” that the Justice Minister does not seem to know what the Constitution says, as illustrated by the nominations he chose.

Simon Busuttil insists on change in the way members of the judiciary are chosen

Leader of the Opposition Simon Busuttil was also adamant that members of the judiciary should be chosen on the basis of the ‘Bonello’ report, making no mention of Dr Debono’s original proposals.

Speaking to the media at Nationalist Party Headquarters, Dr Busuttil stressed the unacceptable situation where a Justice Minister nominates two lawyers for a magisterial post when both breach regulations drawn up in the Constitution.

He insisted that the Prime Minister withdraw the appointment of Dr Farrugia Frendo due to the clear “nepotism” and the fact that she is yet to fulfil all requirements to fill the post.

The fact that they were presented as appointments and not a nomination is “clearly in breach of the principle of meritocracy,” was also stressed.

“The government had an enormous pool of lawyers from which it can choose a magistrate. It is completely ridiculous that we are in this situation,” he said.