Judges and magistrates should be bound by a code of ethics, even after they reach their retirement age, especially if, in their retirement days they are entrusted with government board posts and ‘independent inquiries.’

This is more important in a country where most of these inquiries deal with subjects that have a political tinge.

This is also a country where there are frequent calls for the recusal of some judge or magistrate, on the grounds that they have some form of affinity with people in the political sphere.

The ongoing saga concerning Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi and the Panama Papers magisterial inquiry is a case in point.

The PN is arguing that the judge should not hear the case because his wife is a Labour MEP. We agree and have made the same argument in a number of editorials.

Now imagine if the judge in question were to retire next year and suddenly become a harsh critic of the Opposition, taking digs at them on Facebook and giving front page comments to newspapers.

The likelihood of this particular example actually happening is very unlikely, for Mr Justice Mizzi is known for his integrity. But this cannot be said for all current and former members of the judiciary.

We are speaking, of course, about retired judge Philip Sciberras, the OPM’s favourite for leading independent inquiries, most of which were very politically charged.

Sciberras, a former Labour MP, has led inquiries into various subjects, including one about weak concrete used at Mater Dei Hospital, another to determine whether Enemalta was buying oil products according to international specifications and a very famous inquiry about an oil tanker that ‘escaped’ from the Grand Harbour. Recently, he was part of the inquiry that looked into claims involving PN Deputy Leader Beppe Fenech Adami.

In April of last year we reported how the retired judge had attacked Simon Busuttil, then leader of the Opposition, over the Egrant saga, accusing him of making “false plays,” and of being “jealous, a liar, negative and aggressive.”

Then, in June of this year he had taken aim at the Rule of Law MEP delegation visiting Malta, accusing them of “spreading the bitterness in their stomachs” and “fanning the flames of division and hatred.”

Now he has struck again, saying that he expected more “fabricated stories” to emerge from the Egrant saga and that certain individuals were ready to lie in their “thirst for power.”

These comments were given to the GWU’s Sunday paper, it-Torca, which described the retired judge as an upright person who makes measured comments.

Sciberras, also took a dig at Archbishop Charles Scicluna, saying that people should not expect the head of the church to come up with words of condemnation.

One might agree or disagree with what he wrote, but that is not the point here.

This is not about freedom of expression. Judges and former judges should rise above partisan politics. First of all comments of such a partisan nature only serve to throw a bad light on the entire judiciary which, quite frankly, is already under enough pressure.

Secondly, we cannot have someone who leads independent inquiries declaring his bias so openly and jumping head first into the political fray. This is not the way things should be done. This is exactly why MEPs came to Malta to investigate the rule of law, because the impression given is that the lines between government, police and certain members of the judiciary are very blurred.

The retired judge should not be tasked with leading any more inquiries, especially those of a political nature, because their outcome would be compromised before the process even starts.

And with respect to the post he once occupied, he should consider making these comments in private, not on Facebook or in the newspapers.