For the second time this year, Prime Minister Robert Abela is exerting pressure on the judiciary.

In a democracy, the executive and the judiciary are two different branches which perform distinct duties for the system to work, as much as possible, in an efficient manner. When the executive interferes, or tries to, in the functioning of the judiciary, then alarm bells start ringing.

Earlier this year, during one of his Sunday sermons, Abela boasted to having had a conversation with a magistrate on the courts’ operations. He informed his applauding supporters that this magistrate told him that when stiff punishments are meted out in the lower courts, there is a great chance that they are reduced on appeal.

No more details were given about who the magistrate is, or in what context the conversation took place. What we do know is that such an exchange should have never taken place, whether it was pre-arranged or by chance. This goes against basic ethical principles.

This contact between the head of government and a magistrate was criticised by all those who have democracy at heart. That the PM felt the need to boast about it showed his brazenness, and the Standards Commissioner’s ruling on the matter – a complaint has been filed with him – is awaited. Apart from being reproached by rival political parties and politicians, the Chamber of Advocates also argued against such happenings.

In an editorial published on 5 February, The Malta Independent on Sunday had said that the PM’s behaviour “also leads to questions as to whether the executive is attempting to pressure the judiciary to deal with cases in the way the government wants them to, rather than base their judgment on the laws of the land and, most of all, their impartiality”.

It took only a few weeks to get our answer. A few days ago, the Prime Minister singled out a magistrate in an attack on the judiciary’s operations. In a letter to the Chief Justice, Abela said it was “totally unacceptable” that a magisterial inquiry looking into the death of Jean Paul Sofia on a construction site in Kordin is still to be concluded.

There is no other way but to describe this as an attempt to put pressure on the judiciary while at the same time trying to shift attention away from his own shortcomings. Abela, so far, has refused to accept calls to hold a public inquiry into the tragedy; only he knows the reason why, and his excuse is that a magisterial inquiry is underway and should be enough.

But we all know that there is a difference between a magisterial and a public inquiry. If they were one and the same thing, as Abela would like us to believe, then there would not have been both a magisterial and a public inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. And we know what was unearthed in the public inquiry on that occasion. So there could only be one reason why Abela is so adamantly against a public inquiry into the Sofia case – there are fears on what it could unearth.

There’s another side to the story. There are many magisterial inquiries which are still pending, and many others which took so long to be completed. Why wasn’t he so eager to have other magisterial inquiries concluded, such as those which involved politicians and other people close to the government?

Added to this, why do the police and Attorney General not act on certain conclusions and recommendations reached by the magistrates?