Malta has once again found itself in an embarrassing position on the European stage following the withdrawal of its second nominee, Veronique Dalli, for the post of judge at the General Court of the European Union. This latest development comes just months after the rejection of the government's first nominee, Edward Zammit Lewis, raising serious concerns about the selection process and the political judgment exercised by Prime Minister Robert Abela and his government.

Dalli said she had formally withdrawn her candidacy and alleged that the interview process was "steered in a pre-determined direction". When he had failed to make it, Zammit Lewis had accused the Nationalist Party of working against his nomination.

What happened was not only a personal setback for both Zammit Lewis and Dalli, but also a reputational blow for the country as it seeks to fill the post vacated by Ramona Frendo, who was promoted to the European Court of Justice

The government now finds itself scrambling to identify a third candidate, either from an existing shortlist or through a new call. That two successive nominees have failed to secure the role suggests a deeper problem that cannot be ignored. It is imperative that Malta reassesses the way it nominates candidates for such crucial EU roles. This is not merely an administrative hiccup; it reflects poorly on Malta's institutional maturity and damages its credibility within the EU framework.

The political fallout has been swift and severe. The Nationalist Party seized the moment to criticise the government for what it called a "partisan" approach to nominations. The PN stated bluntly that Abela has embarrassed Malta not once, but twice, by prioritising political loyalty over professional qualifications and competence. The PN's call for reform is both timely and necessary. High-level judicial appointments require candidates of undisputed merit, integrity, and independence - criteria that must be transparently upheld in a public and competitive process.

On the other hand, the Labour Party has responded defensively, accusing the PN of celebrating Malta's misfortunes abroad and of undermining national interests. The PL's counter-argument, however, misses the core issue. This is not about partisan warfare - it is about ensuring that Malta sends the best, most competent candidates to serve in institutions that uphold the rule of law across the European Union. Pointing fingers and politicising criticism does little to restore trust in the nomination process.

Civil society group Repubblika strongly condemned the opaque manner in which candidates were selected, warning that the practice of hand-picking loyalists must end. According to the group, nominations to European courts should be made through a meritocratic, open process that withstands scrutiny both at home and abroad. The group's intervention underscores a growing concern: Malta cannot afford to treat EU judicial nominations as extensions of domestic patronage networks.

The stakes are too high for such mishandling to continue. Judicial positions at EU level are not ceremonial; they involve upholding legal principles that affect millions of European citizens, including Maltese.

Going forward, the Maltese government must treat the next nomination as an opportunity to restore credibility. This means going for an open, transparent selection process that puts merit and experience front and centre. Anything less will not only risk a third embarrassment but will also signal that the government still has not understood how things work in Europe.

The time for political games is over. Malta must get it right this time.