The Malta Law Students' Society (GħSL) condemned Prime Minister Robert Abela for appearing "to undermine the autonomy of the judiciary" and it has requested investigations into three instances where Abela "cast doubt upon the autonomy of the judiciary"

GħSL was referring to Abela's parliamentary speech on Monday where the vote for the new Standards Commissioner and Ombudsman was taken. During his speech, Abela took aim at the pace of a particular magisterial inquiry, seemingly referring to the one of 20-year-old Jean Paul Sofia, who died under the debris caused by the collapse of an industrial building during its construction.

On Wednesday when addressing the press after the new Standards Commissioner and Ombudsman were sworn in, Abela directly appealed to the inquiring magistrate into Jean Paul Sofia's death for this magisterial inquiry to be finalised soon.

In its statement, GħSL explained the difference between a public and a criminal inquiry: "Whilst a criminal inquiry is aimed to preserve material traces of a possible offence, a public inquiry is aimed at identifying possible administrative failures, and are thus unrelated and do not impact or prejudice one another."

"The government is in no position to dictate judicial proceedings. It is the judiciary which determines judicial proceedings, having regard to the quality of justice, not the quantity. The Prime Minister's comments attempt to prejudice the delicate and meticulous process of collection and preservation of evidence. Political convenience is no excuse to scapegoat and place undue pressure on the judiciary; the tenant of the separation of powers is greater than quick and cheap attempts to sway public attention."

GħSL said that Abela should not be making these comments trying to undermine the judiciary which has no right to reply. The proper course of action for the Prime Minister to address shortcomings of members of the judiciary is to ask the Commission on the Administration of Justice to initiate an investigation on any particular member of the judiciary, it said.

"Public denouncement only serves to cloud judgement and prejudice the case at hand. Delays are addressed by efficient allocation of resources to all members and staff, thus the implication that the judiciary is at fault is improper and devious."

In light of this, GhSL has asked the Commission for Administration of Justice, the Chief Justice and the Minister for Justice, as well as the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, to initiate investigations and disciplinary proceedings for three cases.

The first case took place on 22 January, when during a political event Abela said that he expects the courts to be strict with reference to the Pelin Kaya case.

GħSL said that this case could eventually be decided by jurors "who are laymen without experience in the law and without the necessary training against biases. The jurors, in this case, have not yet been empanelled, and thus they are not protected from these comments."

The second case was regarding a video interview on 23 January where Abela said that the courts need to send a "clear message," not only in this case but all cases, against this type of behaviour.

"It is not up to the Prime Minister to impute culpability upon an individual who is still awaiting trial. It is up to an independent and impartial court to do so. These comments transgress the sacrosanct right of the presumption of innocence and prejudice the entire legal proceedings."

The third case took place on 29 January, when Abela admitted to conversing with a member of the judiciary regarding another case which was pending consideration. Abela said that he had a discussion with a magistrate regarding harsh sentences frequently getting appealed in front of the appeals court.

GħSL said that Article 26 of the Code of Ethics prohibits members of the judiciary, specifically magistrates, from having private communications with members of the Executive.

"The Prime Minister's communication with a member of the judiciary demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the fundamental principle of separation of powers and egregiously fell short of the ethical standard expected of their high office."