In an age where we champion digital transformation and demand greater efficiency across public institutions, there are still processes that defy logic, waste time, and serve little purpose in their current form. One such outdated practice is the routine summoning of newspaper and online editors to court - not as parties to a case, but merely as witnesses to verify that a particular article was published in their media outlet.

These editors are not involved in the disputes at hand. They are not being accused, nor are they accusers. Their only "crime" is that their publication carried a report or article that one party in an ongoing case feels is relevant. And so, they are summoned - at great inconvenience - to confirm what is already evident in the printed newspaper or on a publicly available website.

The act of confirming the publication of an article usually takes less than five minutes. A simple statement under oath - "Yes, this was printed/published by us" - is all that's needed. And yet, the editor's day is effectively lost. From the early morning commute to Valletta, to sitting for hours in the courtroom waiting for the case to be called, editors can spend half a day or more for what amounts to a trivial procedural point. In some instances, they aren't even called in the end and are simply asked to return on another day, losing even more time.

This is a burden not only on the editors themselves, but on the functioning of the media. Editors are senior professionals with critical roles in their newsrooms. Wasting their time in courtrooms to verify facts that are already publicly accessible is not only inefficient - it is absurd.

Is a printed newspaper or time-stamped online article not enough evidence in itself? Why must it be physically confirmed in person by the editor, or a representative, when a copy of the publication or a verified link already exists? In any modern, digital-savvy judiciary, surely the publication itself should be taken at face value, unless challenged for authenticity - in which case, more targeted measures could be taken.

There is a simple, commonsense alternative. Allow editors to submit an official declaration - in writing, on company letterhead, and signed - affirming that the article in question was indeed published by their organisation. This document could even be submitted electronically. This would spare editors the need to attend court in person, while still providing the confirmation the court requires.

To be clear, this is not an attack on the courts or the justice system. Editors understand that courts must follow due process and verify all evidence properly. However, the process itself must evolve with the times. Justice delayed is justice denied - and inefficient procedural habits like these add to the backlog and slow the wheels of justice unnecessarily.

Calls for faster judicial processes have echoed for years. Here is a clear, practical area where improvement is possible. Reforming this specific process would save valuable time, not only for editors but for the courts themselves.

Let us move past these antiquated practices and bring our judicial processes into the modern era. Editors should be in their newsrooms - guiding teams, upholding standards, and informing the public - not idling in court corridors to state the obvious.