Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/911593
10 News Analysis APPOINTING magistrates and judges has always been a matter of public debate each time a new appointment is made. For decades, various voices have called for a more transparent method that removes the total power of appointment vested in the Prime Minister by the Consti- tution. Part of that criticism was ad- dressed in the last legislature when a new judicial appoint- ments body was created to scru- tinise candidates and give advice on their suitability. The new body, however, does little to address the perception of political favouritism created by some of the appointments made to the Bench. A history of political appointments The Labour administration since 2013 appointed 15 people to the Bench; 11 of these were in some way or another linked to the party in government, a practice no different to that of the past. 'Political' appointments to the Bench have been around for ages and the subject of criticism long before the current spate of public activism on the rule of law. Malta had a chief justice, Gogo Mifsud Bonnici, who was the brother of a minister – Ugo Mifsud Bonnici – back in the 1990s. Whether such appointments are wrong will always be a subjec- tive argument in a small country where everyone is given a politi- cal label but the dossier, prepared by unnamed authors, creates the impression that the system came into being four years ago. Despite the controversy sur- rounding such 'political' appoint- ments, many in the legal profes- sion concur that the individuals concerned have invariably risen up to the challenge and acted with impartiality. It must be noted that Judge Wenzu Mintoff's first decision was a ruling against the govern- ment that was contesting the Ombudsman's remit to look into complaints by soldiers. It is this lack of context that ex- poses the intention of the authors of the Caruana Galizia report to draw up a lengthy missive of Mus- cat's demeanours rather than an honest assessment of failings or questionable practices that have been around for decades. Few of the young people carry- ing placards and calling for jus- tice would know that Malta had, in the past, a prime minister who was found guilty of breaching hu- man rights by the constitutional court. And it was not a Labour prime minister. Few would know that two police officers found guilty of breach- ing human rights under a Labour administration in the 1980s had been promoted to higher ranks by an incoming Nationalist ad- ministration after 1987, only to be removed from the police corps by the 1996 Labour administration. The document is mostly a col- lection of information titbits from various media outlets, including extensive references to blogs on Caruana Galizia's Running Com- mentary. But another instance that be- lies the narrative that underpins the report is the reference to The Sunday Times of Malta column- ist Michela Spiteri, who was ap- pointed as an adjudicator to the Small Claims Tribunal. Her sins include editing govern- ment documents – something she used to do under the previous ad- ministration as well – and "writ- ing pro-Labour Party newspaper columns". The inclusion of the latter state- ment unmasks the underlying be- lief of the document authors that anything pro-Labour is by default 'bad' – a belief held by the late Daphne Caruana Galizia. The document provides more sober reading when it tackles the Attorney General in that it ac- knowledges that "no AG in Malta has ever acted against the instruc- tions or interests of the Prime Minister of the day". The report argues that Attorney General Peter Grech has refused to use the powers vested in him by the Prevention of Money Laun- dering Act to initiate a criminal investigation against politically exposed persons. Grech has offered an alternative legal interpretation of his powers, which is absent from the report. This does not mean that Grech has no explaining to make. It ap- pears that his replies and those of the Police Commissioner to ques- tions on their legal remit when investigations are concerned even confounded MEPs. maltatoday SUNDAY 3 DECEMBER 2017 That other Malta Billed as an overview of rule of law failings in Malta, a 45-page dossier presented to MEPs on behalf of the Caruana Galizia family set 2013 as the date when things took a turn for the worse. KURT SANSONE assessed the report THE President does not emerge unscathed from the report but an untrue picture is presented when reference is made to a par- don given to the Labour mayor of Zurrieq, Ignatius Farrugia, in 2016. The report makes it seem like the President used her discre- tionary power to pardon Farru- gia, who had been condemned to four days in prison for harassing Daphne Caruana Galizia. The truth is that the judge who presided over the Appeals Court admitted making a mis- take and immediately petitioned the President to grant Farrugia a pardon. No discretionary power was used. The report does make a perti- nent observation that the President's charity work on behalf of the Commu- nity Chest Fund brings her into close contact with powerful business interests. This is used to highlight a charity dinner the President attended at the controversial Montekristo Estates, which belongs to construction mag- nate Charles Polidano. However, the truth is that every president has had such brushes with powerful business interests as a result of fund-rais- ing activities for the Community Chest Fund. The practice is not unique to Coleiro Preca despite the report making it seem so. The President and big business With the people: President of the Republic Marie Louise Coleiro Preca is however portrayed as being 'close to the business' The report does make a pertinent observation that the President's charity work on behalf of the Community Chest Fund brings her into close contact with powerful business interests The document provides more sober reading when it tackles the Attorney General in that it acknowledges that "no AG in Malta has ever acted against the instructions or interests of the Prime Minister of the day". Judge Wenzu Mintoff's first decision was a ruling against the government that was contesting the Ombudsman's remit to look into complaints by soldiers