The last time someone was appointed directly from the office of Attorney General to Chief Justice was a long time ago, in colonial times, when Sir Anthony Mamo was so promoted.

Mentioning Sir Anthony, one of the finest men in Maltese public history, shows the intention of this leader is not to denigrate either Sir Anthony or the new Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri or the new Attorney General Peter Grech.

They, and most of their predecessors, are all worthy persons who did their best to uphold the dignity of their office.

But still, as the interview in this issue with the Opposition’s chief spokesman on justice and home affairs reflects, there is an institutional cosiness between the office of the Attorney General and the executive branch, in other words, the government.

This cosiness was there in colonial times when the intentions of the rulers were to keep the Maltese very much in hand.

The only exception to this rule was Sir Arturo Mercieca who was exiled to Uganda, along with some 80 other Maltese, in his case for failing to take the colonial masters’ side in the huge issues of the time. It was in his defence that Prime Minister Ugo Mifsud was making his speech in Parliament when he suffered a heart attack.

Otherwise, for all that many Chiefs Justice and Attorney Generals were people of high legal calibre and impeccable personal lives (unfortunately until a few years ago), they have always tended to see things with government-tinted specs.

Elsewhere, on the Bench, there have been some cases of courage, such as that of Judge Xuereb who resigned after the National Bank issue and, in a lesser way, the judges who excused themselves in the schools’ and the Blue Sisters cases in the 1980s.

If that was the situation in colonial times and in the early years of independence, the situation has now evolved. The Attorney General has accumulated or been given even greater powers, in today’s running of the institutions.

As Dr Herrera remarks, he is the person who drafts the government’s legislation. More importantly, he is the government’s legal representative in all kinds of cases, from civil to criminal.

In addition, he has been given wider and wider remits so that today he can appeal on anything and about everything.

It may be a good idea to separate the AG functions and to keep his prosecutionary roles separate from his legislative ones through the appointment of an autonomous Public Prosecution Officer.

Then there is the equally serious issue of appointments.

The Prime Minister is autonomous and in his full function when he appoints a member to the Bench and even more so a Chief Justice. However, he cannot avoid the fact that such appointments will inevitably be commented upon by the country at large and especially by those who, rightly or wrongly, perceive they have been passed over in such appointments.

When Sir Anthony Mamo was promoted from AG (or whatever they were called in those days) to Chief Justice, did the other judges on the Bench have an opinion on the matter? And when Dr Camilleri was appointed, succeeding Chief Justice Vince de Gaetano who was also a former AG, although he spent some years on the Bench before the judges’ crisis pushed him to Chief Justice, did any of the judges on the Bench have an opinion on the matter?

The government would no doubt argue that the appointment of a Chief Justice is its prerogative, but can it stop the judiciary from concluding that the government must have found none on the Bench as good as the AG? And, in a wider sense, the public as well?

That is why it is perhaps apposite to compare like with like – the 2010 appointment to the 1960s one. Malta is a very small country but nevertheless it is somewhat difficult to govern. Apart from an endemic politicisation of anything that moves, the forces of law and order, as also evidenced in this issue, still find it difficult to prove their more than justified suspicions.

But the Criminal Court is not the only court there is and in most of the other court-related cases, the government can be right but it can also be wrong. And people’s rights are most times involved.

The strength of a democracy is how well the checks and balances work, more than how easy matters are worked out so that the government gets its case. One could be exaggerating, but ensuring a level playing field is perhaps more important than the smooth running of a country.

This paper wishes both the new Chief Justice and the new Attorney General well.