The much anticipated start to the compilation of evidence in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia was stalled this week when a magistrate recused herself over what was termed as ‘familiarity’ between her and a member of the victim’s family.

For transparency’s sake, magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech announced right at the start of the sitting that she had once been a classmate of one of Caruana Galizia’s sisters, and that the two had recently sent messages of condolences after the loss of loved ones.

For many this was not a good enough reason to ask for a recusal – surely the fact that the magistrate and one of Daphne’s sisters shared a classroom all those years ago should not affect the magistrate’s impartiality in the case which, at the end of the day, will not lead to judgment.

The compilation of evidence is, as the name implies, the hearing of evidence following which the court decides if there is enough of it for the case to go to trial.

After spending a couple of hours in her chambers, magistrate Frendo Dimech, who is regarded as a serious and no-nonsense member of the judiciary, announced that she would not be hearing the case. Magistrate Charmaine Galea has now been appointed to preside over the process.

Frendo Dimech’s move was criticized by many who felt, perhaps rightly, that the level of so-called familiarity between her and the victim’s sister was nowhere near enough to warrant a recusal. But those criticizing might have missed the point that the accused, who strongly insisted on a recusal, could have taken the case up to the Constitutional Court, thus delaying the case even further.

So in this particular case the magistrate might have taken the more pragmatic approach to ensure that justice is not delayed by a day longer than it should be.

But as many commented yesterday, people find it hard to understand how the justice system works and what standard is required of our judiciary when one magistrate resigns from a case over a seemingly petty issue when other members of the judiciary refuse to recuse themselves even if their conflict of interest is much more apparent and the cases they have been assigned much more politically charged.

These include the famous Panama Papers case where Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi has turned down a request to recuse himself from hearing an appeal filed by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, Minister Konrad Mizzi, OPM Chief of Staff Keith Schembri and four others, who insist that there should be no criminal inquiry to determine whether laws were broken in the infamous scandal.

The request for such an inquiry to take place was made by former Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil and accepted by Magistrate Ian Farrugia.

While the integrity of the judge is not being questioned, his recusal is warranted seeing that he is the husband of a Labour Party MEP. This newspaper has already written, on a number of occasions, that Mizzi should not continue hearing the appeal.

We believe that things cannot be taken too far and magistrates and judges should not be made to recuse themselves over petty issues and distant familiarities. After all, in a small country such as Malta, it is very difficult to have a case where all of the parties are strangers to each other.

The problem lies really with magistrates and judges whose appointments are considered to be political, especially when they are assigned politically charged cases.

We feel that there should be a clear set of guidelines on conflict of interest and grounds for recusal. On the other hand, a fairer and more transparent system to appoint magistrates and judges, in a way where they would enjoy wider support, should be put in place as soon as possible.

 Speaking on INDEPTH, law faculty dean Kevin Aquilina suggested that we move toward the continental system, where judges are appointed by members of the judiciary themselves.

Such a system would be welcome, even when one considers that a number of judges as well as the Chief Justice will be retiring in the coming months.