The judge who has been tasked to rule on an appeal against a court decision to basically investigate the seven main players in the Maltese dimension of the Panama Papers revelations must recuse himself from hearing that appeal.
This is not a petty political issue, it is an issue that touches, and which could threaten to crack, the very foundation of the country’s democratic structures. It is also one that could call into question the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches.
Let us be crystal clear from the outset: Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi has nothing but the soundest of reputations. His credentials when it comes to jurisprudence speak for themselves and are not being called into question in any way, shape or form.
But Mr Justice Mizzi, whose wife happens to be Labour Party European Parliamentarian Marlene Mizzi, who herself has been nothing less than an outstanding representative of Malta at the European Parliament, will be deciding on a desperate, and perhaps misguided, appeal that includes three very senior members of government – the Prime Minister himself, his chief of staff and a minister considered to be the Prime Minister’s right hand man – against the holding of a magisterial inquiry into allegations of their involvement in money laundering sprouting from the Panama Papers.
This creates something of a conundrum.
We do not associate ourselves with the Opposition Leader’s somewhat venomous attack on the judge last Sunday, yet we still feel that Mr Justice Mizzi should recuse himself from the case. Not because he would allow himself to fall victim to this conflict of interest, but because, if his decision goes one way and not the other, he could be accused of having done so by members of the public.
We will not speak from a jurisprudential or legalistic viewpoint, we will speak from the viewpoint of public perception. And it is indeed the public perception of the judiciary that must be safeguarded at all costs.
The public, as we know all too well, is a cynical bunch. They see hidden agendas, ulterior motives and hidden hands at play virtually wherever they look. But no matter what the public thinks of any of the country’s institutions - government, the police corps, or the media for example - the public must always be able to look to the judiciary with confidence. They need to be assured that justice is indeed blind and that it is in the halls of justice that justice will be done without fear or favour.
The Chamber if Advocates chastised the Opposition Leader for his comments, reminding him that those who have influence on public opinion should refrain from making comments on the judiciary.
The public, however, is intelligent enough to spot a conflict of interest when one rears its head, and while the Opposition Leader may have spoken out of turn in this respect, the observations and recommendation we are making follows in the same vein as that of the Chamber: the independence and impartiality of the judiciary absolutely must never be called into question, not by the Opposition Leader nor by a judge failing to recuse himself from a case that carries even the slightest whiff of conflict of interest.
And, unfortunately, should Mr Justice Mizzi remain on the case and eventually rule in favour of the appeal lodged by the government top brass et al, there will always be that lingering doubt, irrespective of how convincing and legally-sound the rationale behind his decision is.
This must not be allowed to happen.