Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/349229
21 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 20 JULY 2014 from a public relations point of view, really… until, of course, they go and throw a Christmas party in a courtroom. So, like it or not, when a vacancy arises to appoint a judge – in a country where judges are few, the case-load is gargantuan, and the law courts already suffer from a reputation for occasional political bias here and there – the choice will invariably be interpreted (rightly or wrongly) along political lines. More worryingly the same thought-process inevitably extends also to his work as a judge. Mintoff is now under pressure to prove (Joseph Muscat even told us to 'judge him on his performance') that he is politically unbiased. Doesn't that automatically create an à priori tendency to go overboard in the opposite direction? Maybe Mintoff is up to the task of putting aside such considerations when delivering judgment. Maybe not. Either way, it is the perception that counts. And in this case, the perception is: regardless of his own qualities, he was still put there for all the wrong reasons. Then, as usual, there's the same old bleating response to any or all criticism along the lines of… yes, but YOU (that would be the Nationalists, folks. The rest of us don't exist, remember?) did exactly the same thing in the 25 years you were in power. And out comes trotting the list of PN-appointed judges and magistrates, with their individual links to the PN tattooed on their foreheads. That, I suppose, was exactly what Dylan was squawking about when he sang about justice being… ooh, that was close… a game. By making such an overtly political choice to counterbalance earlier, equally overt political choices, all that has been achieved is the perpetuation of an endless session of musical chairs. And this compounds the existing impression that… forget fairness, insight, integrity, etc. The only thing that matters in appointing a judge is whether the nominee is one of 'us' or 'them'. In this case, whether Labour gets a little closer to equilibrating the see-saw so that the balance no longer tips so obviously in the Nationalists' favour (as it undeniably has in recent years). In time, when more vacancies arise, it may even get to tilt the other way. Bingo! Everybody happy. Right, kids? Um, not exactly, no. For one thing, 'political interference in the system' was one of the things the Labour Party manifesto very specifically pledged to discontinue. For another: the only possible conclusion to be drawn is that political parties still consider the law courts to be an extension of their own private battlefield. This in turn overlooks the fact that the same political parties are also subject to the law – though you'd never guess just by watching them in action – and may therefore find themselves facing proceedings before the same judges they themselves appointed, specifically to tilt the balance of justice in their favour. Where's the justice in that? And besides: how can the public have any confidence in the justice system, when its government practically confirms that the judiciary is part of its own extended structure? The most crucial question, however, remains this: who pays the price, when public perceptions of the judiciary plumb such depths that not an iota of trust remains in the system at all? I suspect it will be the people who need that system the most. The ones who have proceedings in court – criminal, civil, commercial – and who depend on a just and fair ruling for their life or livelihood… but who have every reason to doubt they'll get it in the end. Maybe they won't get it because they don't deserve it, naturally. Maybe they will experience a miscarriage of justice. Who knows? It's not important either way, because when you lose trust in the system, you will automatically doubt the verdict whatever it is. People will always look for subliminal reasons to believe they've been cheated out of their rights. Such reasons already exist aplenty, so… why not just create some more? Yes, that'll do nicely. I didn't lose my case because I was guilty as crap. Oh, no. I lost it because the politically-appointed judge (doesn't matter which) found out I'm a Nationalist, or a Labourite, or that I didn't vote in the last election… And on it goes…just like that ancient Indian Cree prophecy: only after the last vestige of trust has evaporated, the last pillar of the separation of powers has been eroded, and the last public post has been filled with a former party activist… only then will you find that you just can't swallow the Labour Party manifesto. Opinion game…