Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1536815
10 OPINION maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 25 JUNE 2025 IN the absence of any responsi- bility of the judiciary to anyone but itself, our judges and mag- istrates risk starting to consider themselves as demi-gods. The judiciary is plagued with numerous problems, and the lack of any kind of scheme of ac- countability has led to the decay in the system. The common man has long been losing all confi- dence in the judicial system. The backlogs and delays in cas- es only reinforce this loss of faith. Adjournments are given easily, and witnesses wait for hours to have evidence recorded. A few members of the judiciary con- duct the proceedings according to their whims and fancies. The number of days and the num- ber of hours that they work are just not enough to deal with the problem. On more than one occasion, I have publicly pleaded for a judi- cial ombudsman. It seems that now the govern- ment is going in that direction, only with a different nomencla- ture, as it prefers to call this new institution the Standards Com- missioner for the Judiciary. As important as the independ- ence of the judiciary is, it is also a fundamental principle that every institution must be accountable to an authority which is inde- pendent of that institution. But when it comes to the judi- ciary itself, a different set of rules and a different set of standards are followed. The judiciary has become a judge in its cause, and transparency is conspicuous by its absence. Effective access to justice can be seen as the most basic re- quirement, the most basic hu- man right, of a system like ours, which purports to guarantee le- gal rights. The judiciary is in a very powerful position in our de- mocracy and demands supreme confidence from the people. Individuals, when harassed and threatened by the politics that engulf most governments, turn with great hope to the judiciary. But are our judges infallible? Aren't they humans? And isn't to err human? They are but the products of the society; they suf- fer from the same failings, frail- ties and shortcomings, from the same bias and prejudice and the same ills and vices. Then who will judge the judges? The question, 'Who are the judges accountable to?' is very valid and justifiable. The judi- ciary is not accountable to the people, as the people do not elect the members of the judiciary. It is neither responsible to the oth- er bodies of the government due to an ever-present hue and cry about the separation of powers and independence. But are independence and ac- countability antitheses of each other? Judicial independence is not an end in itself. Both judicial inde- pendence and accountability are instrumental values. The function of independence is to let the judiciary decide ac- cording to the rule of law and not be influenced by any other agency of the government or any private interests or the interests of any individual. Trust in the administration of justice depends not only on the merits of the verdicts rendered in the courtroom but also on the probity and the appearance of probity among those who decree them. A litigant may not feel happy about losing a case, but no one should walk out of a proceeding reasonably believing that the process was tainted by a judicial officer who was biased, improperly influenced or other- wise unfair. So, we can safely conclude that if the judges or magistrates start deciding cases arbitrarily, be- come corrupt, ignore the rule of law and are influenced by poli- tics or the appeal of private gain, then their judicial independence is hampered. Hence, the need for a supervi- sory body and a judicial watch- dog. That is why judicial independ- ence has to be understood in the context of its purpose. Judicial accountability and ju- dicial independence are comple- mentary to each other. The judicial branch may be the most subtle and least under- stood of all state powers, but its independence, integrity and im- partiality are at the heart of the due administration of justice that is the firmest pillar of good government. While judges' and magistrates' doctrinal mistakes are corrected by the well-established appellate court system, there are fewer protections against their mis- conduct on and off the bench. That's where the standards commissioner for the judiciary comes in. It is not necessarily uncommon in Malta for judges and mag- istrates to engage in activities that compromise or appear to compromise their judicial inde- pendence. While the concept of an independent judiciary came well before public insistence on the principle of an accountable judiciary, it would be wrong to conclude that the latter is a de- parture from the former. Con- It's all about judicial accountability Mark said Court (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday) Mark Said is a veteran lawyer