All in the family, Labour style

Make no mistake. Something is very – but VERY – rotten in the state of Malta’s justice system at the moment. And I don’t just mean the depressing fact that a government elected on the promise of ‘meritocracy’ has somehow managed to turn the magistrates’ bench into an extension of the Labour Party family album.

The problem clearly runs deeper than that. This week, the Justice Ministry announced two new appointees to the magistrates’ bench… and within seconds, both nominations were mired in controversy.

Because, of course, ‘more controversy’ is exactly what the Maltese justice system really needs right now… given that it is visibly still struggling to restore public confidence after at least two high profile corruption scandals in recent years.

And let us not forget that these are not exactly the first two magistrates to be appointed to the bench under Labour. Other appointments have included Wenzu Mintoff – the former whip of the Labour Party (and also long-standing editor of the Labour party newspaper)  – and Joe Mifsud, a former Super One journalist and PL international secretary for years.

Now, the same Justice Ministry has appointed two more magistrates… and my, what a surprise. One of them seems to be ineligible to even take up the post (with the embarrassing result that the President has temporarily vetoed her nomination) and the other happens to be the daughter of Anglu Farrugia – former PL deputy leader, and currently the Speaker of the House.

Now: if either of these clearly misguided and ill-advised appointments could be described as a ‘one-off’… well, it would still raise eyebrows, but at least it could conceivably be described as something of an ‘exception’.

As things stand, however, it cannot. This sort of nonsense has in fact become the ‘rule’ under Joseph Muscat’s Labour administration. It has become a habit of this government to always appoint its own cronies and henchmen to the most sensitive posts this country has to offer. 

But at least – to cut Dr Caroline Frendo Farrugia a little slack for a change – there are no immediate impediments to her appointment to the bench. It may be crude, clumsy and oafish of a government to so blatantly reward its own, despite an apparent lack of any serious credentials whatsoever (she barely even served the barest minimum of seven years practising in court, for crying out loud)… but at least the appointment itself was above board. 

The same cannot be said for Dr Ingrid Zammit Young, who (at the time of her nomination) was still chairperson of the Employment Commission. There is a constitutional proviso stipulating that “A member of the Employment Commission shall not, within a period of three years commencing with the day on which he last held office or acted as a member, be eligible for appointment to or to act in any public office.”

We are now told that this is a ‘matter of interpretation’… even though there doesn’t seem to be very much to interpret here. Arguments that the judiciary does not count as ‘public office’ – because it is independent of the civil service – are complete and utter hogwash. Of course judges or magistrates are ‘public officials’. They serve the public interest, and are paid from the public purse.

Moreover, this constitutional proviso serves a very real and very important function within the broader concept of justice. It introduces a safeguard against corruption.

It is already impossible for a serving judge or magistrate to ever become President of the Republic… for the simple reason that the judiciary cannot aspire to any position higher than itself (otherwise, it would be all too easy for a government to ‘buy’ a favourable verdict in court, with the offer of a ‘promotion’.)

The same applies at lower levels too. The chairperson of the Employment Commission should not be allowed to simply waltz into another position of much higher rank and responsibility from one day to the next.

The three-year grace period is there to dispel any doubt that such positions might be offered in return for ‘services rendered’. For this reason, it is not something that can simply be waived on a ministerial whim. 

There is another, more obvious reason why the appointment of any new magistrate must always be 100% above board. It is after all part of the job description of a magistrate to mete out justice in cases of law-breaking. How can we possibly take this responsibility seriously, if certain magistrates would be known to have been appointed illegally?

Personally, I don’t know what irritates me more in all this. The glib, amateurish and conceited way in which a Labour government has cavalierly reduced the judicial bench to a Labour Party ‘festa familja’ – or the equally nonchalant way it has simply disregarded some of the most basic safeguards against abuse. 

Oh, wait, no. There is something that irritates me more. Only this time, it has nothing to do with the appointments in themselves… but rather, the way they were reported in the press. 

This, for instance, is from The Times: “A mother of two, Dr Zammit Young, 43, currently works for Go plc. To date, she chaired the Employment Commission.”

Got that, folks? So Dr Zammit Young is a ‘mother of two’. She has brought two children into the world: a fact evidently considered of greater priority (in a news article about the appointment of a magistrate), than, for instance, how long she’s actually worked as a lawyer in court, or what other specific credentials or experience might make her suitable for the post.

No, indeed. The number of pregnancies she has carried to full term was in fact the first thing we were even told about her... as though this detail tells us everything we need to know about her ability to dispense justice in a court of law. 

Meanwhile: not to stress too fine a point on this… but my great-grandmother managed to bring a total of 16 children into the world (some of whom died in infancy). That’s an awful lot of experience in the one field that seems to matter the most when appointing magistrates, don’t you think? Does this mean my great-grandmother was eight times more qualified than Dr Zammit Young to serve as a magistrate? Hmmm…

And why stop at my great grandmother? Having ‘children’ is hardly unique to the human species, you know. Every animal and plant on the planet that also employs sexual reproduction as a means of propagation (i.e., around 90% of animals, and slightly less for plants) can make the same claim. Cats, mice, dogs, horses, monkeys, cockroaches, mosquitoes… they can replicate their genes, too. So why the heck do humans attach so much importance to what is ultimately one of the seven vital functions common to all living things? 

Might as well include all the others while we’re at it: “Dr Zammit Young, who occasionally defecates and urinates just like everyone else, was appointed to the magisterial bench…” I mean, come on… 

OK, at this point you might think I’m latching onto an insignificant detail purely for effect; that – to cut to the chase – I am now being something of a pillock.

Naturally, I beg to differ. Not so much about the pillock bit – guilty as charged, etc. – but I do think it’s important, and here is why. 

Consider the next sentence in that same article: “Dr Farrugia Frendo, 33, daughter of Speaker Anglu Farrugia, practises as a lawyer in court. She was last year appointed court attorney under the guidance of Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro…”

OK, we’ve already covered the family connection with Labour. BUT… there is suddenly no mention of any children at all. 

Is this because she doesn’t actually have any? I don’t know, and quite frankly it’s none of my business. But that’s precisely the problem. The press has made it our business. If you’re going to introduce two women in the same article, and identify one by the number of children she has mothered, and not the other…well, by omission you have automatically drawn attention to a very private issue which has NO PLACE WAHATSOEVER in a report about two new magistrates.

I mean, it’s the sort of thing that shouldn’t really have to be spelt out. This is after all the 21st century we’re supposed to be living in. How would people react if Joe Mifsud and Wenzu Mintoff were presented as ‘father(s) of two, three (or however many)’ when appointed magistrates last year? 

It would be ludicrous, and we all know it. Yet we all seem ready to accept the ludicrous (not to mention the downright sexist and anachronistic) when it is applied to women in the same roles. There is a reason for this, too. It is OK to present a woman as a mother first (and magistrate, or any other career, second)… because we still live in a society that evidently still considers the primary role of women to be baby-producing machines for the exclusive benefit of men.

But to be fair… in this particular case, it’s probably just as well. There do not seem to be any other credentials or qualifications worth reporting.