Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1542709
AND the new year has started with a bang. MFOPD's first official meeting for this year with the Social Care Standards Authority (SCSA) left me deeply troubled by how we have arrived at such a distressing situation. MFOPD was invited to attend this meet- ing at the request of parents who had lodged complaints regarding the respite service their son was receiving. This meeting was convened for the benefit of their son and all other users of the respite service. MFOPD attended with the sole intention of ensuring that it would lead to positive and meaningful improvements to the ser- vice. Unfortunately, this was not the out- come. The meeting ended abruptly, with the parents and MFOPD leaving before any constructive resolution could be reached. I remain perplexed by the manner in which the parents were treated. The per- son chairing the meeting openly admitted that he had only become familiar with the case in the previous two days, yet repeat- edly insinuated the parents were directing blame towards one of the residents. This narrative was reiterated to such an extent that MFOPD felt compelled to clarify that the concerns raised were not limited to the parents' son, but reflected the experiences of other service users as well. MFOPD's aim was to ensure that this meeting would lead to tangible change. Regrettably, the meeting fell far short of what MFOPD had reasona- bly expected. MFOPD was even told that it was free to pursue this matter outside of the meeting. MFOPD will not tolerate parents being spoken to in such a manner. Nor will it ac- cept such attitudes from a government en- tity. Parents are the voice of their children and must be treated with respect. It was equally disrespectful for such an attitude to be directed towards the national um- brella organisation for the disability sector. Around 10 individuals were present at the table (excluding the parents and MFOPD's representative), yet only the chair spoke— despite stating that he had only become ac- quainted with the case two days prior. MFOPD sincerely hopes that it does not continue to witness such attitudes towards parents of persons with disabilities when they advocate on behalf of their children. MFOPD has chosen to speak out publicly because this is not the first time it has be- come aware of similar situations involving other entities. Parents must be encouraged to speak up when issues arise; otherwise, nothing will change. Authorities must lis- ten, understand, and act. No parent and no person with a disability should ever be ignored. A judiciary under attack 10 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 21 JANUARY 2026 OPINION Mark Said Mark Said is a veteran lawyer PUBLIC opinion should protect the judi- ciary from executive and partisan media overreach but what has been happening over the past year suggests otherwise. We've seen Labour exponents and hardliners publicly denigrating and as- sassinating Magistrate Gabriella Vella's character following her conclusions in the Vitals hospitals concession inquiry. On more than one occasion, we've seen former PN minister Jason Azz- opardi directly attacking and making serious allegations against individual members of the judiciary. We've seen a fierce battle that raged in the media between former Judge Giovanni Bonello, taking it vehement- ly up against the judiciary for failing to protect the ordinary citizen from the corrupt executive might, and lawyers Edward Zammit Lewis and Ramona Attard in defence of our judges and magistrates. While the public may disapprove of curbing the courts in the abstract, in practice, sections of the public have often supported the Labour govern- ment's attacks against the judiciary. In many democracies where political lead- ers have challenged the courts, public opinion is rarely a powerful guardrail protecting the judiciary against an ex- ecutive power grab. Instead, a much more potent safeguard for the courts is societal mobilisation. Two key dynamics explain why pub- lic opinion is usually insufficient pro- tection for the courts. The first is that even when voters value democratic principles like checks and balances, they usually care more about concrete policy issues, such as immigration, crime, or the economy. Most citizens are policy voters first and democracy voters second. We've seen the Labour media leverage popular policies to turn public opinion against the courts, often following a strategy I call court-baiting. While the rules governing the judi- ciary are often complex and arcane, changing them can have dramatic ef- fects on the independence of the courts and their ability to hold other branches of government accountable. Reforms might be warranted where judges are self-dealing or out of touch with pub- lic preferences. Too often, though, rule changes are nothing more than attacks by the executive on the independence of the courts. The government has lim- ited who, when and how one can ini- tiate magisterial inquiries, effectively truncating the power of the judiciary to carry out inquiries at the behest of ordinary citizens. An insidious feature of judicial back- sliding is that it is undertaken incre- mentally and can be hard to monitor. We can recall how ministers have occa- sionally acted improperly by question- ing the legitimacy of judgments when they do not get their own way. It's time to stop our judiciary from facing unfair and often venomous crit- icism from both sides of the political aisle, leading to a dive in public con- fidence in the nation's court system. Unfair vilification of judges and mag- istrates is undermining our justice sys- tem. Judges and magistrates are prohibit- ed from commenting on cases pending before them, so they cannot defend themselves. If, as too frequently hap- pens, inaccurate, unfair, and unjusti- fied attacks against our judiciary are left unchallenged, public perception of the integrity and impartiality of the targeted judges and the judiciary as a whole is undermined, and confidence in the judicial system diminishes. If judges and magistrates can't speak for themselves, who should speak in their defence and in defence of the ju- dicial system? If the criticism represents a fair opin- ion or comment, no response is appro- priate. But when criticism is materially inaccurate or misrepresents the legal system or a judge, or when criticism seriously and negatively impacts the community and the administration of justice, a response is needed. The question is: Who should be de- livering that response, when and how. Parents and persons with disabilities should not be ignored Marthese Mugliette President Malta Federation of Organisations Persons with Disability Parents must be encouraged to speak up when issues arise; otherwise, nothing will change. Authorities must listen, understand, and act If judges and magistrates can't speak for themselves, who should speak in their defence and in defence of the judicial system?