There is little justification for any further delay in resolving the impasse over the appointment of a new Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti has made it clear that he will remain in office until Parliament chooses his successor. But his willingness to continue doing his duty should not become an excuse for the government and Opposition to continue postponing a decision.

Enough time has passed.

The election is behind us. The new legislature has been sitting for five months. Whatever political calculations may have influenced the decision to suspend or postpone discussions before the election are no longer a convincing explanation for continued inaction.

The government and Opposition should resume their talks immediately and, more importantly, approach them with the seriousness that the office of Chief Justice demands.

The events of the first months of this year should not be forgotten. The process had become deeply unpleasant, with the names of potential judges being made public and a sitting judge, Lawrence Mintoff, making extraordinary allegations about the way Prime Minister Robert Abela was approaching the appointment.

His five-page letter to the Cabinet Secretary, in which he accused Abela of placing money and political calculation above judicial independence, represented one of the lowest points of Abela's tenure as Prime Minister.

There is responsibility on both sides.

The government cannot simply blame the Opposition for failing to agree to its preferred candidates. The Opposition, equally, cannot treat every government proposal as unacceptable simply because it comes from the government. A two-thirds majority was deliberately established to force political agreement on appointments of this importance. It is not there to provide either side with an opportunity to exercise a veto indefinitely.

But the greater responsibility remains with the government.

It is the administration of the day that has the greater capacity to initiate discussions, identify areas of agreement and ensure that the country's constitutional machinery continues to function smoothly. It knew well in advance that the Chief Justice's retirement was approaching. It knew that a two-thirds parliamentary majority was required. It knew that relations with the Opposition were difficult.

Yet the country still found itself without an agreed successor when the time came.

Chief Justice Chetcuti's intervention at the start of the forensic year on 1 October should therefore be taken for what it was: a serious appeal for the political class to grow up.

His statement that the manner in which the succession had been handled had hurt him personally should not be brushed aside. The person occupying the highest judicial office should not be placed in the position of publicly expressing disappointment at the way politicians have handled his succession.

Chetcuti's appeal for a "just path", for prudence and maturity, deserves to be heard. So does his warning that when everyone pulls in different directions, "we have a problem and a crisis".

There is also a wider lesson here.

The Chief Justice is not a political prize. Neither is the Auditor General, another position that needs to be filled. Even here, the appointment of Auditor General Charles Deguara had to be extended because Parliament failed to agree on his successor.

The fact that the country has had to prolong the tenure of two holders of such important constitutional offices because politicians could not reach agreement is a situation that shames both sides.

It is precisely the kind of institutional uncertainty that Malta's political system should be designed to prevent.

The underlying structural problem remains unchanged. The Venice Commission has repeatedly recommended that the appointment of the Chief Justice be removed from political bargaining and entrusted to a more independent mechanism. The European Commission has likewise identified weaknesses in Malta's system.

Those reforms must eventually be confronted. But reform cannot be used as another reason to postpone the immediate problem.

There is a Chief Justice who needs a successor. There is an Auditor General who also needs a successor. There is a Parliament that has been given the constitutional responsibility to make these appointments.

The election is over. The political temperature has, at least in this respect, changed. Five months into the new legislature, the government and Opposition have no good reason not to return to the negotiating table.

They should do so without preconditions, without public grandstanding, and without treating compromise as surrender.

Judge Chetcuti has done what the Constitution requires of him. He has stayed on and continued to perform his duties. The fact that he is prepared to remain until an agreement is reached is a demonstration of institutional responsibility.

It should not become an invitation to political irresponsibility.

The country needs a permanent solution, not another temporary extension. It needs a Chief Justice chosen for his or her independence, dignity, competence and understanding of the judiciary's role in society.

And it needs political leaders who understand that reaching agreement on such an appointment is not a sign of weakness.

It is their job.

Five months into a new legislature, there is no longer any excuse for waiting. The talks should resume, and they should resume now.