Reference is made to the letter entitled “Unshared Opinions” (TMIS, 19 November 2006). In this letter the Chamber of Advocates stated that it “deplores and dissociates itself from the opinions expressed by Dr Lorraine Schembri Orland in her letter “Appointment of judges and the Constitution”

(TMIS, 12 November)” and further stated that “it is imperative that full respect is shown by advocates to the judiciary and that the general public is not

given further cause to doubt the integrity of the judiciary”.

I regret this attempt by the current committee of the Chamber of Advocates to misdirect your readers on the fundamental issue at hand – namely, the nonconformity to the mandatory qualifications set down in the Constitution of a recent appointment of a member to the judiciary.

My call for a serious investigation and for serious accountability still stands. At no point in my letter did I show any disrespect for the institution of the judiciary. It is indeed out of respect for this institution that I did raise these points as the integrity, dignity and impartiality of the Bench would surely be diminished in the face of an unconstitutional appointment.

The integrity of the Bench would be called into question if its members can be appointed at the unbridled whim of a politician and in violation of the basic law to which even the Prime Minister is subject. How can such a person act with the independence and impartiality owed to the Constitution if the nomination of that person stems from an illegality?

I further regret the stand taken by the current committee of the Chamber of Advocates. These colleagues have themselves in the recent past requested my assistance and input on previous occasions in the formulation of recommendations on legal issues. I must also add that I myself am a former member of the committee of the Chamber of Advocates.

It is apparent, however, that in their haste to defend the government minister and/or parliamentary secretary involved in the appointment, the Chamber has cast aside the Constitution. I must draw its attention not only to article 96(2) which is mandatory (meaning cannot be derogated from), but also to the Oath of Allegiance which all lawyers, the judiciary and Members of Parliament are sworn to uphold. This very simple oath holds all of us to “bear true faith and allegiance to the people and the Republic of Malta and its Constitution.” This is a primary duty.

Yet unfortunately, the Chamber, which should be at the forefront as a sentinel of the Constitution and the rule of Law, has taken an ostrich approach on this basic point. This is all the more surprising when one considers that the Chamber is represented ex officio on the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which had called for the immediate scrutiny of a previous judicial appointment.

The Chamber is also duty bound to safeguard, defend and protect its members. It is in the interests of every advocate that members of the judiciary are drawn from practitioners who at least qualify, according to the minimum standards set by the Constitution. Yet the Chamber would allow the Minister of the day to do otherwise rather than observe its primary obligation to protect and serve the Constitution and to protect and serve its members.

The Chamber has rolled over on numerous occasions, failing to respect the wishes of its members in order to succumb to the whims of the current politician responsible for government sinecures and benefits.

Fear, ignorance, naiveté’ or political lackeyism are at the service of corruption which feeds on them and uses them to stifle opposition.

Above all, however, the appointment to the highest institution of a person in violation of the fundamental law of the land by the Government of the day is intolerable and the Chamber would have us remain silent on this point. If we did obey, what then? Does silence legitimise an illegal act?

Why is the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary responsible for this breach silent? To date neither have confirmed or denied the doubts raised in my letter. The Prime Minister has stated the Cabinet made the appointment collectively. However, I cannot believe that Cabinet members were apprised of these issues and may themselves have been misdirected. Who therefore guards the guardians?