The Attorney General, the same Attorney General who is overseeing the redaction of the Egrant magisterial inquiry so that it is fit for public consumption, this week mustered the gall to appeal a constitutional court ruling that Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi must recuse himself from an appeal against a full magisterial inquiry into the Panama Papers.

This is an example of government gatekeeping at its finest, or at its worst, depending on which way one views the matter.

This is a particularly thorny case over whether a judicial inquiry should be launched into the possibility that money laundering laws were broken when Panamanian companies and New Zealand trusts were opened by the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and one of his key ministers.

This could be considered the mother of all the ongoing inquiries.

This is the inquiry requested by former Opposition leader Simon Busuttil. That was a year ago now.

Although a magistrate had agreed some time ago to the request for such an inquiry to be launched, that ruling had been appealed by the Prime Minister, himself a party to the case, his chief of staff and his tourism minister – plus four other alleged accomplices.

Since then, the inquiry that should have got off the ground so many months ago is still languishing at the appeal stage, and even after a constitutional court ruled that the appeal judge should step down, the Attorney General has bought still more time and put still more obstacles in the course of justice by lodging an appeal against the recusal.

Mr Justice Mizzi needs to do the right thing and step down from the case once and for all, his position on it is clearly as untenable as can be: not on grounds of competency, credentials or integrity. He must recuse himself because at the end of the day, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to have been done.

And it will certainly not be seen to have been done given all these shenanigans at the courts aimed at derailing or permanently stalling the inquiry but also because, if anyone needed reminding, Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi happens to be married to Labour Party European Parliamentarian Marlene Mizzi, who has been vocal in support of those in government who have been exposed by the Panama Papers, and equally vocal against those who have sought to bring those individuals to justice.

Mr Justice Mizzi’s untarnished reputation of integrity and jurisprudence is unquestioned, but the judge must certainly see that his position is compromised.

As the constitutional court observed in its ruling: ‘It a manner most crystal clear Mr Justice Mizzi should be moved aside, even if only in the best interest of the administration of justice, all semblance of doubt about every decision and provision he would make.’

As such, the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction upheld Busuttil’s request and ordered that the case is assigned to another judge. 

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.

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 one. It sees hidden agendas, ulterior motives and hidden hands at play virtually wherever it looks. 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.

This most recent gambit by the Attorney General does nothing to foster that notion.

And while the judiciary is not beholden to public opinion in any way, shape or form, the public must not be made to suspect that yet another of the country’s institutions, arguably its most important one at that, is under threat.

Again, justice must be done and it must be seen to have been done, but indications so far are not giving the public much confidence.

It is simple: 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, unfortunately, that lingering doubt, irrespective of how convincing and legally sound the rationale behind his decision is.

This must not be allowed to happen.

The Courts are perhaps the last bastion of the state that has not been captured by the government, and should trust in that institution fail then the country has been well and truly failed.