For what feels like the umpteenth time in this legislature, the country's courts and its judiciary are once again the crossfire of a political debate.
This after Magistrate Nadine Sant Lia ruled against challenge proceedings filed by the NGO Repubblika wherein it had requested that the Police Commissioner to charge people in relation to Pilatus Bank.
The NGO held a press conference two days later and said that it disagreed with the magistrate's sentence, calling it a perversion of justice, and saying that it would be appealing.
In a post on Facebook, Prime Minister Robert Abela responded by saying that the "extremist branch" of the Nationalist Party had been exposed as abusing the judicial system, and is now resorting to attacking the courts.
"These are only extremists who want the courts to decide in their favour. This is not justice, but persecution," the PM said.
Once their deceit had been uncovered, they are trying to scare the police so as not to investigate them as ordered by the courts, Abela said.
Abela said his duty is to fight against the "hypocrites of righteousness".
There is a lot wrong with Abela's statement, but it's no surprise that the Prime Minister feels that he is very well-placed to recognise what an attack on the court may look like - after all he is the one who has mounted the most concerted and coordinated attacks on the judiciary in the past couple of years.
The first such concerted effort was when Abela used Magistrate Marseanne Farrugia as the scapegoat for his reluctance to call a public inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia in the collapse of a partially constructed factory.
Abela at the time argued consistently that a public inquiry could not be opened before the magistrate investigating the case - who was Farrugia - had completed her work, and consistently criticised Farrugia over the time it took, even going as far as to write to the Chief Justice over the matter.
This is despite the fact that a public inquiry with a clear cut terms of reference can co-exist with a magisterial inquiry and any court proceedings that are to follow. Abela eventually did relent, and called a public inquiry days after rejecting a motion in Parliament calling for it and as he was hours away from the prospect of a mass protest on the doorstep of his office.
Of course inquiries should be done in the most efficient and timely manner possible, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that this was the only reason for Abela's critique.
Then there came the attacks on Magistrate Gabriella Vella who was leading the inquiry into the Vitals hospitals concession. There, Abela cast doubts on aspects of the magisterial inquiry despite claiming he had no copy of it and cast doubts on the magistrate herself.
Worse still, he claimed that the judiciary was part of some sort of 'establishment' working in cahoots with civil society and with the opposition in order to destabilise the government and the country's democratic process.
That's an extremely serious accusation to make against the judiciary - yet Abela had no problem in making it, time and time and time again. Perhaps that's because he knew that members of the judiciary are, by law, prohibited from making any public commentary and so his attacks could go largely unchecked.
Any attack against the judiciary is bad, and is not befitting of a democratic country. Disagreeing with a magistrate or judge's sentence is hardly an attack against the judiciary though, and neither is a decision to appeal a magistrate's sentence.
Saying that a magistrate is part of some sort of cloak-and-dagger 'establishment' aimed at undermining democracy, however, is.
And if people do begin attacking the judiciary, then Abela should look in the mirror and ask himself who did it first and whose example they are following - because he's the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister should set the example for everyone to follow.