Now that the court has delivered its judgment, acquitting Yorgen Fenech in connection with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, a case that has haunted and traumatised the nation for years, Malta must confront a number of difficult and consequential questions.
Before turning to those questions, however, there is one issue that deserves renewed attention: the inadequate remuneration afforded to those called upon to serve as jurors.
I have previously raised what I described as the issue of the quasi non-payment of jurors in this newspaper, in an article entitled "A nation gripped by a murder mystery". In that piece, I also examined the system of random selection through which ordinary citizens are called upon to perform jury service.
There is nothing unreasonable about requiring jurors to step away from their normal routines for the duration of a trial. On the contrary, such restrictions are necessary. Jurors must be able to devote their full attention to the proceedings, free from outside influence, and must necessarily sacrifice time that would otherwise be spent with their families, friends and colleagues.
What is difficult to justify, however, is the extent to which those undertaking this serious civic responsibility can be treated as though they are providing a form of community service, rather than performing an essential function at the very heart of the justice system.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with community service. Many people willingly give their time, expertise and resources to humanitarian causes, including voluntary work in developing countries and assistance to people living in poverty or facing severe hardship. Such contributions are admirable precisely because they are freely given, motivated by compassion, conviction and a desire to help others.
Jury service is fundamentally different.
When citizens are summoned to serve on a jury, they are not volunteering. They are fulfilling an obligation imposed upon them by the State. They may be required to put their professional commitments on hold, rearrange family responsibilities and endure the considerable personal and practical disruption that can accompany a lengthy trial. And yet, despite the importance of the role and the demands placed upon those who perform it, jurors remain inadequately compensated for the time and disruption involved. The distinction, therefore, is not between serving others and serving one's community. It is between voluntary service, freely given, and an essential civic obligation imposed upon citizens without adequate compensation, recognition or support.
Jury service is not a favour performed for the State. Nor is it a favour performed for the community. It is a serious civic responsibility and an indispensable component of the administration of justice. Those who are called upon to perform that responsibility should receive the recognition, financial support and respect that the role demands.
There is also a broader question of priorities. As has been repeatedly reported across different sections of the media, public money is routinely allocated to matters that have generated questions about political favouritism, patronage and the proximity of certain individuals and organisations to the administration of the day.
Whatever one's view of those controversies, the principle should be straightforward: if the State can find money for a wide range of discretionary expenditure, it must also be able to find the resources necessary to properly compensate citizens who are compelled to perform one of the most serious civic duties the justice system can impose upon them.
The government should therefore review the current system without delay and ensure that jury service is remunerated in a manner that reflects its importance, its demands and the sacrifices it requires. A justice system that depends upon ordinary citizens to administer justice must also demonstrate that it values the citizens upon whom it relies.
Against that background, it would hardly be unreasonable for the government to provide professional and appropriate mental health support to those randomly selected to serve on juries, as well as to their dependants where necessary.
The psychological and emotional burden of participating in a trial should not simply be dismissed once jurors have completed their duty. For some, the experience does not end psychologically when they walk out of the courtroom. Those exposed to disturbing evidence, traumatic testimony and the immense responsibility of determining another person's guilt or innocence may continue to carry the consequences long after the trial has concluded.
Appropriate support should therefore be available when it is needed.
But beyond the question of support for jurors lies a more fundamental question: where is our society heading? Should we simply accept the judgment and move on, or should we demand a full, independent and credible investigation into the circumstances surrounding the events that have now come to light?
If such an investigation is undertaken, it must operate within a clearly defined timeframe, with its findings and conclusions made public. The Maltese people have a legitimate right to understand not only what happened, but how such events were allowed to unfold - and whether institutions, officials or individuals entrusted with positions of authority failed in their responsibilities.
A democratic society cannot simply close the book once a criminal case has reached its conclusion, regardless of the outcome. Justice in the courtroom is indispensable, but accountability within our institutions is equally fundamental. One does not replace the other.
There is also a legitimate and necessary way for citizens to express their outrage: through peaceful and sustained demonstrations that convey, clearly and unequivocally, the depth of public anger, disgust and dismay at what has emerged.
A protest march through the capital need not be an act of confrontation or disorder. It could instead be a dignified and powerful expression of public concern - a demonstration that citizens have not become indifferent to what has happened and that they continue to demand integrity, transparency and accountability from those entrusted with positions of authority.
Peaceful protest is not a threat to democracy. It is one of democracy's most visible expressions.
Such a demonstration could, perhaps, mark the beginning of the end for those who enabled, facilitated or tolerated a culture of collusion in places where the public expects nothing less than honesty, responsibility and the highest standards of conduct.
The message should be unmistakable: accountability cannot end at the courtroom door.
On the occasion of Malta's Independence Day tomorrow, 21 September, I wish to extend my warmest greetings and best wishes to all Maltese, both in Malta and around the world.
Independence Day is a moment to reflect with pride on our nation's journey, our shared heritage, and the values that form the cornerstone of the foundations of our country.
May we continue to cherish our Maltese identity, traditions and achievements, while looking forward with confidence and hope to an even brighter future for generations to come.
Għal Malta - dejjem kburin b'pajjiżna.
Happy Independence Day to all Maltese.
Gejtu Vella
People & Industrial Relations Consultant