The Registrar of the Malta Mediation Centre, Romuald Attard, has struck at the heart of one of Malta's pressing legal challenges: the culture of automatic recourse to litigation. His call for mandatory mediation as the first step in civil cases deserves serious consideration - not only because it would reduce backlogs in our courts, but because it would promote a healthier, more constructive approach to resolving disputes.
Malta, like many other jurisdictions, faces a judicial bottleneck. Civil cases can drag on for years, consuming vast amounts of time and resources for both litigants and the state. Courtrooms are overburdened, judges are stretched thin, and ordinary citizens often find themselves waiting far too long for justice. Attard is right: unless we change our culture of conflict resolution, the problem will persist.
Mediation offers a clear alternative. It is faster, more affordable, and more personal. Unlike court proceedings, which can be rigid, lengthy, and adversarial, mediation puts the parties themselves in control. They set the timetable, choose the venue, and retain ownership of the outcome. This flexibility not only saves time and money but also reduces the emotional toll that litigation inevitably takes.
The cultural objection Attard highlights in his interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday - that Maltese people tend to head straight to court - should not be underestimated. For generations, litigation has been the instinctive response to conflict. Lawyers, understandably, are often more comfortable with courtroom processes than with alternative dispute resolution. Yet clinging to this habit serves neither clients nor society at large. It entrenches division rather than promoting reconciliation.
Mandatory mediation does not mean that every dispute will be resolved outside of court. What it means is that before rushing into litigation, parties must at least attempt dialogue in a structured environment. If mediation fails, the courts remain open. This is not a denial of justice - it is an invitation to pursue justice more constructively.
The advantages go beyond efficiency. Mediation preserves relationships in a way litigation rarely does. In family disputes, employment disagreements, or commercial conflicts, the ability to maintain goodwill can be invaluable. In court, parties are adversaries, physically separated and pitted against one another. In mediation, they sit together, often across the same table, guided by a neutral facilitator whose task is not to impose judgment but to help them find common ground.
Confidentiality is another strength. Court proceedings are public, sometimes exposing sensitive personal or business details. Mediation, by contrast, keeps matters private. For businesses, this is particularly important, as it protects reputations and preserves trust with clients and partners. For individuals, it spares them the discomfort of public scrutiny.
Sceptics will argue that mediation requires goodwill to succeed. But even when mediation fails, the exercise is rarely wasted. It often clarifies the issues at stake, narrows the points of contention, and sets the stage for more focused litigation. At the very least, it can reduce the scope of a dispute, saving the courts valuable time.
The government should take Attard's proposal seriously. Introducing mandatory mediation for civil cases could help restore faith in our justice system. Too often, citizens feel that justice delayed is justice denied. By embracing mediation, Malta can make justice swifter, fairer, and more humane.
It is time to recognise that going straight to court should be the last resort, not the first. Mediation is not a threat to justice - it is its ally. As Attard rightly notes, when parties talk, they often find solutions that serve them better than any judgment could. For the sake of our courts, our citizens, and our society, Malta should embrace this cultural and legal shift.