The Labour government has made the justice reform one of its top priorities. As from day one of this legislature, it embarked on a programme to modernise the system and make it more reliable and efficient, recruiting the best legal mind this country possesses – Dr Giovanni Bonello – to reorganise an outdated sector and bring it in line with today’s needs.
The idea behind the reform is to give fresh impetus to a justice system in need of a comprehensive revamp and a severe confidence boost, enabling it to lift itself after a series of regrettable incidents served to dent its credibility.
It is therefore quite disturbing that in the same breath, the Labour government is procrastinating on the impeachment of a judge. On the one hand, it has always said that it will base its position on the assessment made by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, while on the other hand – and after the commission expressed itself on the matter not once, but twice – it is clearly trying to prolong the process to allow the judge to reach retirement age before Parliament discusses the issue.
The conflicting messages the government is sending on the justice system will not lead to an increase in the people’s trust in the judiciary; more so at a time when this confidence is at a low, perhaps the lowest point ever.
It has been a nightmare of a decade for the judiciary. First, the Chief Justice and another judge were embroiled in a bribery case and were both convicted. More recently, another judge faced charges of corruption, which were dropped when he died. Last Christmas, a magistrate had to call a press conference to explain his behaviour after a party was held in a courtroom. And now, the Commission for the Administration of Justice (CAJ) has found that there is prima facie evidence of a judge having misbehaved, thereby drawing disrespect towards the bench.
These incidents have sent shockwaves through the whole system, which for many years has been under attack, largely because of delays in the administration of justice, with cases taking years to come to an end when they should have taken months.
Some slight progress was registered through attempts in the past to speed up the courts’ work, but this was clearly not enough. More judges and magistrates were appointed and there was a better distribution of cases, but the workload did not diminish and efficiency did not improve by much. People still complain about having to take a day’s vacation leave to attend a court sitting, only to be told that the hearing has been put off for some reason or another.
Dr Bonello and his team were brought in by the government to formulate proposals for a more efficient and effective system for the administration of justice. And it did not take long for them to provide a long list of suggestions, which are now up for public discussion. When Dr Bonello presented the final report to the Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, Owen Bonnici in the first week of December, he (Dr Bonello) had told him that “our journey ends here, now your work begins”.
That journey began 10 weeks ago and we have not heard much since. Maybe it is because the government is working on the proposals and meeting all the stakeholders to find the best way in which to implement what has been suggested. For now, let’s give the government the benefit of the doubt. Soon, however, it must start delivering.
Still, there is a conscious and determined effort by the government – Dr Bonnici in primis – for the justice reform to work. And this is why it is quite conflicting that then, conversely, the government is dragging its feet on the impeachment motion.
When in January, the CAJ ruled that there is a prima facie breach, the stand that was taken by the government was to push for a fresh beginning of the process. The legal argument that was made was that the impeachment motion had been presented in the past legislature by a Prime Minister who is no longer head of government and no longer an MP. The Speaker ruled that the Gonzi motion was “dead” and could not be revived.
The government chose to present a new motion, believing that this would have led to a fresh investigation by the CAJ; one that would have taken at least a year to complete, by which time the judge would have been home and dry in retirement. But the commission, in a way, overruled the position taken by the government, writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives that it stands by its original decision. For the CAJ, the original prima facie ruling is still applicable today.
In all probability, the government was not expecting this. For its part, the Opposition is insisting that there should be no further procrastination and that the matter is brought before Parliament in the shortest time possible. At one point, the Opposition Leader made a very strong statement, saying that Labour had chosen the interests of the judge over the interests of justice. Labour argued that the quick presentation of a motion by PM Joseph Muscat disproved what the PN was saying.
But the government’s delaying tactics continued, as a request by the Opposition for an urgent meeting of the House Business Committee (HBC) – which is to decide on when the House is to discuss the impeachment motion – was turned down.
The HBC will now meet on Wednesday, and the outcome of that meeting will give a clear indication of the degree to which the government believes in justice. It has a chance to show that it really wants to close this chapter.
Any more postponements would give further credence to what Dr Busuttil said and deal yet another blow to the justice system.