An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of any democracy and is crucial for preventing usurpation and tyranny by those holding power.

However, despite constitutional guarantees, in practice, elected politicians might affect the legal system by exerting undue influence over actors involved in legal proceedings, be they the judges, prosecutors, police or witnesses.

This begs a pertinent question: Do elected politicians receive special court treatment?

Media reports suggesting political bias can shape citizens' perceptions that politicians are above the law, eroding trust in legal institutions, even in a well-established democracy such as ours.

Theoretically, elected politicians and serving government officials can be prosecuted during their time in office and face the same legal proceedings as any ordinary citizen. But there is a growing perception in our society that members of the country's ruling party are more likely to have their pending cases closed without a conviction during the time that the party remains in government.

The possibility cannot be excluded that threats and abuse of power can be used by members of the ruling party to affect the behaviour of actors involved in the criminal justice system.

Consider this in light of the criminal charges filed against former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, former chief of staff Keith Schembri, ex-minister Konrad Mizzi and government officials in May 2024.

Muscat responded to the charges by calling it a disgrace and abomination and attacking the judiciary, stating, "All those who tainted themselves with this injustice, or washed their hands from trying to correct it, will be judged most severely by the people immediately, by justice over the years and by history forever."

Prime Minister Robert Abela tried to undermine the results of the respective magisterial inquiry on which the charges were based, first by stating it was politically motivated ahead of the EU elections and then by calling it "hearsay". Abela subsequently also called on voters to "show what they think of the judiciary".

In addition, on his arraignment hundreds of pro-Muscat demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse in Valletta, Malta's capital, in support of the former prime minister, chanting Labour Party slogans and decrying the criminal charges.

Maltese media reporting, especially party media, is often confrontational. We are not unused to the headline that begins 'Judge raps ... or 'Judge slams ...'.Whether that is a matter for admiration or criticism is beside the point.

Gone are the days when the work of the courts could be seen as standing apart from some areas of public debate.

The judiciary must hear and determine issues of fact and law arising between the parties, presented in a form enabling judgment to be passed upon them, and, when passed, to be enforced by process of law. There begins and ends the function of the judiciary.

It is mainly because the judges and magistrates in our country have confined themselves to this function that they have attained and still retain the people's confidence.

Parliament, supported by a wise public opinion, has jealously guarded the Bench from the danger of being drawn into the region of political controversy.

Nor is this salutary tradition confined to matters of an actual or direct political character, but it extends to informal inquiries, which, though presenting on their face some features of a judicial character, result in no enforceable judgment, but only in findings of fact which are not conclusive, and expressions of opinion which are likely to become the subject of political debate.

The Maltese judiciary has not been exempt from political pressures. It is regrettable that, too often, slogans are splashed across media pages which seek to attribute irrelevant characterisations to particular judgments as 'subversive, subservient, flawed, partisan or biased'.

When judicial proceedings or judgments find their way into the political arena and debate, there is hardly any close examination of the reasons for the decision in the relevant cases for the relevant legal rule or principle. That is an intellectual exercise. It is not an exercise in polemics or an exercise in emotion. It is a task that requires intellectual rigour.

Primary responsibility for the proper performance of the task lies, of course, with the judge or magistrate. But others have important roles to play. The role of prosecutors and defence counsel in the adversary system is critical.

Despite such pressures, the judiciary has been able to consolidate its powers and independence.

The rule of law serves as one of the fundamental guarantees or rights given to a citizen. It is an assurance that all people, regardless of wealth, race, religion or allegiance, are subject to the laws of the country and will be treated equally and fairly by it. It is a guarantee of substantive and procedural justice. This aspect of the rule of law is in fact entrenched in the constitution.

However, words, even when found in so important a document as the Constitution, are by themselves inadequate protection. The rule of law can only flourish in society when the primary institutions that are responsible for making, implementing and upholding the law are equal to the task given to them.

Our liberty and dignity are protected and promoted when the rule of law is upheld and justice is allowed to prevail.

Political considerations and even threats of violence must always take a back seat to the rule of law if we are to march successfully towards a civil and civilised society.