The process leading to the appointment of a Chief Justice could have been handled with more care than it has been so far. Unfortunately, it has been dealt with as another political football. The Parliamentary debate, on Wednesday, left much to be desired.

The political bickering which has been going on for quite some time can further prolong the path to reaching a consensus. It seems we are in for the long haul. Attaining consensus requires good faith.  Its presence is not always evident.

In all fairness, it has to be stated that no one doubts the legal competence of the government's candidate for Chief Justice, Consuelo Scerri Herrera. It however stands to reason that her controversial behaviour which led to then Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano censoring her is of significance.

A number of libel cases, 21, which she was considering in her court as a Magistrate, on orders of Degaetano, were removed from her list of cases and assigned to another Magistrate. Plaintiffs, defendants and witnesses involved in these cases were party guests or dinner companions of Consuelo Scerri Herrera.  This was documented by a number of photos splashed online. This is public knowledge, even though some, conveniently, tend to feign forgetfulness.

One of the photos of these parties published in a blogpost on Daphne Caruana Galizia's Running Commentary, dated 8 January 2017, shows a certain Dr Robert Abela enjoying himself at a party venue. His presence, even though he was not yet an MP, indicates his attitude to these specific circumstances.

This is not just an issue of a conflict of interest, nipped in the bud by the then Chief Justice. It is also a case of a lifestyle in conflict with what is expected of our judiciary. Having members of our judiciary partying with politicians, businessmen, media representatives and practising lawyers, is not acceptable in my view.

Why does this need to be spelt out? Is it not embarrassing enough for the judiciary that it even happened? This is the elephant in the room. It cannot be treated as a minor matter which can be conveniently ignored.

Having a Chief Justice who has been censored in this way for unethical behaviour is not on. The ethical behaviour of holders of public office cannot and should not be discounted.

The Prime Minister's insistence with proceeding with the candidature of Madame Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, notwithstanding the above, signifies that even he did not think seriously about the candidature put forward by government. It is most evident that, insensitively, he viewed her candidature as that of a stalking horse, testing the grounds until the real candidate is put forward.

Such an attitude is unbecoming, and, in the long run is extremely damaging to the public's perception of what the administration of justice is all about. It has also damaged Scerri Herrera's own position, which she has carefully tried to nurture since having being censored for her unethical behaviour.

The Leader of the Opposition, notwithstanding his relative inexperience, performed much better than the Prime Minister during Wednesday's Parliamentary sitting. He was more credible and managed to resist the bullying tactics of the Prime Minister who unsuccessfully did his best to manoeuvre him into submission.

Where do we go from here? It will be difficult as Parliament has not yet distanced itself from the quasi-similar circumstances when the appointment of the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life was discussed. Even then, a two-thirds majority was not achieved. Then Robert Abela retaliated and opted to change the rules, thereby ensuring that he could ride roughshod over the opposition. It was a clear indication of a lack of good faith.

A similar situation also determined the recent debate on Constitutional amendments relative to the judiciary.

The two-thirds Parliamentary approval requirement in all these instances cannot be achieved unless a considerable element of good faith is injected into the process. 

As I write it is being announced that meetings between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will take place during the coming hours. Let us hope that there is a change for the better, the soonest.

There are many valid persons who can be considered for the office of Chief Justice. The approach to the process of selection should however distance itself from the political bickering which has been characteristic so far. Only then can the climate to attain consensus be redeveloped.

Carmel Cacopardo is a former Chairperson of ADPD-The Green Party in Malta.