"Mr Justice, this is Mr Galea our Permanent Secretary," I told one of the most senior Judges who had just entered the room.  "My Sir Humphrey," I smiled.

I had asked Johann Galea, our hardworking Permanent Secretary, to accompany me to the Judiciary's Association annual Christmas drinks.  Permanent Secretaries are rarely mentioned by the media but their importance in terms of the whole workings of the Government is second to none.  They are invisible to the public eye, but very visible and crucial once you step inside any ministry.

In Malta there exists an Association of the Judiciary.  Few people know this but, like Permanent Secretaries, it exists and is very important.  The Association aims at bettering the conditions of the members of the Judiciary and the Justice sector as a whole.  Contrary to what one might think it is not headed by the Chief Justice but by a member of the Judiciary who is elected by his or her peers by a democratic vote.

Of course, as happens in all democracies, the Chief Justice might hold an opinion on one point and the Association might hold another completely different opinion.  I can hold a third opinion, and other leading academics in the field a fourth.  What we do is that we try and reach compromises and achieve consensus.  I believe that in most cases we have managed to do that.

 + + + 

On my way to the Christmas drinks, I quickly - as of habit - refreshed the various news portals to see the most recent updates.   Fair enough the headlines were dominated by the decision of the European Commission to "entertain" for use of a better verb, article 7 against Poland.

Only a few days ago, I had an informal dinner with the rest of the Justice Ministers in the European Union.  There was no seating arrangement and I happened to sit right next to Łukasz Piebiak, the deputy Minister of Justice of Poland who has been attending the Justice Council for a number of months now.  Lukasz is a member of the Judiciary who took a break from his career to serve as a technocrat in the Polish Cabinet.

We spoke at length about the reforms that his Ministry is undertaking.  I can understand why the Government of Poland is pushing forward those reforms because I too am a Justice Minister who is criticised due to lack of efficiency by some members of the Judiciary. However those reforms do cross a red line.  I augur that through constructive dialogue Poland and the European Commission can iron out the differences and get back on track.

 +  + + 

We too carried out Constitutional reforms in our Judicial system, some of which touched principles which had been long forming part of our legal set up.  However, we did not cross red lines because we entered into a full dialogue, listened to all parties and managed to achieve full consensus in the House.

Let me be clear- most of the things which Poland is proposing to do are things which sometimes I read in the letters to the editor section of some newspapers or are suggested to me by people in the street and sometimes even lawyers who I meet in my everyday life.  "Minister, you should decrease the age of retirement of members of the Judiciary so that you could instil new blood."  Or - "Minister, you should use your powers and relegate the Chief Justice to the post of Judge so that the Government could appoint someone with fresh ideas."

These are all things which I was told on various occasions. I always replied with an emphatic no - I might have created enemies or critics by doing that.  I might have come across as "weak" in their eyes. It could be.  But these are things which you simply cannot do.  These go against the rule of law and the concept of the independence of the judiciary.

I pride myself that, instead, our wide-ranging reform has been introduced in our law in a smooth and positive manner.  And I have always expressed full confidence in the Chief Justice and the Judiciary as a whole.

 + + + 

The reform which we introduced has been so uncontroversial that probably few people remember by now what it was.   But the fact that it was uncontroversial does not mean that it was not far reaching.

The very notion that it amended parts of the Constitution which are entrenched and need a two-thirds majority to be changed is testament to this.

Let me refresh your memory.

The legislative package was threefold - firstly; a complete change in the way the members of the Judiciary are appointed.  Secondly; a complete change in the way the members of the Judiciary can be disciplined.  Thirdly; the creation of a service pension for the members of the judiciary.

As in most things of a "structural" nature, the benefits will be reaped in time.  But we created the foundations for a better justice system.

Of course, as it always happens, some people say we did too little, other say we did too much.  I think we reached an optimum balance and I thank Jason Azzopardi, the Opposition spokesperson, who provided constructive suggestions and legislative support.

I would love to debate each part of the Constitutional reform we undertook, particularly with the benefit of hindsight now that the new system has been around for a number of months.

I pride myself that we did all this together, and in full conformity with the rule of law and the fundamental principle of separation of powers.

+ + +

Someone who is caught up in Court in, say, separation proceedings might ask: what difference does all this talk make to my case?

On an immediate level, it does not.  And that is the crux of the story.

It does on a long-term, because an edifice is only as strong as its foundations.  We reinforced those foundations.

However, we also reinforced the edifice with a number of reforms which allowed us to improve the efficiency rate as can be attested by the European Commission's justice scoreboard.

We still have a lot of things to do.

A recent editorial of this same newspaper, quite rightly, mentioned a number of things which infuriate the general public when it comes to the justice system.  I tried to make a short list: cases which take far too long, the guilty person is never found at home with no noticeable sanction, postponements in court cases and the number of members of the police force which go to the Courts every morning.

In my next article I will tackle all those points one by one: I will try to portray as an honest a picture as I can "warts and all."  Then I will say what we did and what we are going to do about them.

I really wish that the year 2018 be the year of healthy and constructive debate and action on the betterment of the rule of law in our country.

That is the best present we can give to the public at large.

Owen Bonnici is Minister for Justice, Culture and Local Government