Civil society organisation Repubblika has warned that a "false narrative" is circulating that the current deadlock over the appointment of a new Chief Justice is the result of rules imposed by European institutions, insisting instead that Malta adopted the system against clear European advice.
In a statement, Repubblika said it is incorrect to suggest that the two-thirds parliamentary majority requirement was dictated by the Venice Commission or by "the Europeans". On the contrary, the organisation said European bodies repeatedly advised Malta not to introduce such a system and cautioned that it could lead to political paralysis.
Repubblika did not mention him by name, but it was referring to what former Labour Prime Minister Alfred Sant wrote in The Malta Independent today.
In its statement, Repubblika pointed to the Venice Commission's 2018 opinion, which did not recommend a parliamentary vote for appointing a Chief Justice. Instead, the Commission advised that the President should make the appointment on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Committee, composed mainly of members of the judiciary, in order to depoliticise the process and safeguard judicial independence. According to Repubblika, no European institution proposed making Parliament the appointing authority.
The organisation said that in 2020 the government unilaterally drafted legislation introducing the two-thirds majority requirement and only afterwards sought the Venice Commission's views. The Commission warned that such a system risked encouraging candidates to seek favour with politicians and could result in a complete stalemate if parties failed to agree. Despite these warnings, the law was enacted.
After the legislation came into force, the Venice Commission expressed regret that Malta had acted against its advice and reiterated its concerns about the practical consequences-concerns which Repubblika says are now materialising.
Repubblika also cited successive European Commission rule of law reports, which have repeatedly described Malta's procedure for appointing a Chief Justice as defective, criticised the exclusion of the judiciary from the process, and faulted Malta for failing to follow European recommendations. Since 2022, the European Commission has formally urged Malta to remedy these shortcomings, advice which Repubblika says has been ignored.
Repubblika said that, in this context, remarks by the Prime Minister suggesting that Malta is stuck because of those who want appointments based on "bargaining and hostility" are misleading. The organisation said it interprets those comments as a reference to Repubblika, which it said has consistently argued since 2018 for a different appointment method to end political negotiations and protect judicial independence.
The organisation said a way forward exists if there is political maturity. In the short term, both sides of Parliament should work seriously to reach agreement under the existing, though flawed, law, noting that several senior judges enjoy broad political and institutional respect and could command consensus.
Beyond the immediate appointment, Repubblika again called for the long-promised constitutional convention to be convened to rethink how the Chief Justice is appointed in line with European democratic norms.
Repubblika said the crisis had been predicted and that the warnings were long on record, adding that responsibility lies with those who ignored them and that proper governance requires reform of a law known to be defective.