news

Open mindedness rules in new Chief Justice nomination

By Kurt Sansone

The decision to nominate Justice Noel Arrigo as Chief Justice confirms the government's liberal and open-minded attitude when it comes to high profile appointments.

One of the companies in which the newly-appointed Chief Justice Noel Arrigo is a shareholder is contesting a tax bill to the tune of Lm197,000.

According to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company deposited with the Registry of Companies in January this year Mr Justice Arrigo is a majority shareholder in the company together with family members.

The company is a reputable and bona fide importer, exporter, wholesaler and retailer dealing in wines and spirits, beer, perfumes, pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, cigars and tobacco among other things.

The same firm has interests in other import and export companies.

The same company also acts as a mercantile agent and may operate bars, snack bars, restaurants, guest houses, hotels and other similar establishments.

The financial statements for the year ended 31 December, 2000 deposited at the Registry of Companies on 15 November 2001, it highlights that the company has a dispute with the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on tax payable of Lm197,025.

But the statement adds, ‘The company has made objections against the said assessments and is contesting these claims of which the outcome is not determinable at this time.’

Mr Justice Arrigo, who will replace current Chief Justice Joseph Said Pullicino, graduated from University in 1973 and was appointed Judge in 1989.

Since his appointment in 1989 Mr Justice Arrigo has presided over a number of cases in the Civil Court of First Instance, the Constitutional Court and the Courts of Civil and Criminal Appeal respectively.

In Malta members of the Judiciary are not obliged to publicly declare their interests, similar to the annual exercise undertaken by Cabinet members. It is well known that a number of magistrates and judges have business and commercial interests.

Abroad it is considered unethical for the judiciary to have indirect business concerns but in Malta with such low salaries, such interests are considered as untenable conflicts of interests.

Local observers of the judicial system argue that if members of the judiciary are not offered better wage packets one should not coerce them to divest themselves from business and commercial ties.