The Commission for the Administration of Justice yesterday explained its set up and duties in the light of opinions which it said had recently been expressed on the broadcasting media about it and decisions it had taken, with the opinions being based on a misunderstanding of the law and the facts.
From the commission’s statement it was obvious, though this was not explicitly stated, that the commission was referring to its involvement in the cases relating to the positions held by a magistrate and a judge in sports bodies, which the two had refused to give up. Commission secretary Deborah Farrugia said in the statement it was wrong to say that the commission had asked the government to boycott any member of the judiciary. It was equally wrong to say that the commission was somehow politically motivated in what it did. This was obvious from the sequence of public and known facts.
Explaining the situation, the commission said that it was not a body set up by the government. It was an institution set up by the constitution, just as other institutions were, such as parliament and the courts of justice.
No member of the commission is nominated by the government, it pointed out. There are 10 members and these were the President of Malta, the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, two judges elected by the bench of judges, two magistrates elected by the magistrates, a member appointed by the Prime Minister – not by the government, a member appointed by the Opposition Leader – not by the opposition, and the president of the Chamber of Advocates.
The members appointed by the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader should be at least 45 years old, have the respect of the public and be known for their integrity and honesty. The commission said that in the execution of their duties, its members had to act according to their individual judgement, without any direction or control of some other person or authority.
One of its functions was to carry out the necessary investigation should a motion be referred to it which was carried by the House of Representatives for the removal of a judge or magistrate. On conclusion of the investigation the commission reports to the Speaker as to whether or not the member of the judiciary was prima facie found to be guilty of incorrect behaviour or incapacity. If no such proof was found no other action would be taken about that motion. If proof was found the motion would be considered by the House of Representatives, and the member of the judiciary could be removed by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the House.
The commission said that another function it had was to draw the attention of a judge or magistrate on anything, in the court where he presided, which was not conducive to the efficient and proper function of that court, and to draw the attention of the judge or magistrate to any behaviour which could affect the trust he had due to the office he held, or to any shortcoming on his part in connection with some code of ethics which applied to him.
In every such instance, the commission said, the constitution left it to the member of the judiciary, in his integrity, dignity and seriousness, to conform with the commission’s warning expeditiously and without objection.