Ethical standards are good but only if they apply to others

Justice Minister Jonathan Attard unveiled a package of constitutional amendments on Monday, which he said will strengthen standards and improve efficiency within the justice sector.

The constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in parliament to be approved. It shouldn’t be hard to achieve the required threshold because most of the amendments are widely agreeable even though some may merit a deeper analysis.

One of the welcome amendments is the introduction of a standards commissioner for the judiciary, who would be tasked to investigate complaints against judges and magistrates behind closed doors. This new office will also have the power to examine, and if necessary, verify the declarations of income, assets and interests made by members of the judiciary.

We can only hope that this new office will serve as a reference point for complaints ordinary people may have about the behaviour of some members of the judiciary.

It is good that those who pass judgment on others are held accountable. They are expected to observe the highest level of ethical standards. The judiciary’s independence must always be safeguarded but this also comes with an obligation to act responsibly, ethically and transparently.

When announcing the reforms, the justice minister said the changes should not be interpreted as a sign of distrust in the judiciary.

In Attard’s own words: “The vast majority of members of the judiciary uphold their constitutional oath with integrity. However, as in all institutions, isolated actions can undermine public trust. It is therefore essential not only to enshrine ethical standards in the Constitution but to establish robust mechanisms for their enforcement.”

The minister’s statements are fine words indeed, which we can hardly find fault with.

But there is more than a hint of irony in government’s newfound zeal for ethical standards given its own poor track record.

It is surreal that the minister is putting forward a constitutional amendment that would allow the new standards commissioner to scrutinise the declarations of assets of members of the judiciary when we have a prime minister who has been refusing to publish the declarations of assets of his own ministers.

Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi last week reiterated that the prime minister’s refusal to publish the asset declarations for 2023 represents “a substantial step backward for transparency”.

The asset declarations for 2023 should have been published last year but the prime minister has insisted he us under no obligation to make them public, breaking a long-held tradition for such declarations to be tabled in parliament.

Unless the prime minister is playing a childish game to spite journalists who normally scrutinise these declarations, his actions suggest he, or his ministers, have something to hide.

It is ironic that a government which gives short shrift to ethical standards should be the one to impose those standards on others. What is good for judges and magistrates, is not good for ministers, it seems.

The situation is even more pitiful when one considers that the prime minister has refused to apologise in a recent case investigated by the standards commissioner. Despite being given the opportunity to apologise and close the matter without reference to the standards parliamentary committee, Robert Abela refused.

And, in a separate case, when Abela was miffed by a probe requested by Momentum’s Arnold Cassola, the prime minister threatened to change the law so that ‘frivolous’ complaints are stopped in their tracks. Abela had accused Cassola of abusing the law, something the Standards Commissioner disagreed with.

This show of disdain towards basic decency and ethical standards by the prime minister simply jars with government’s noble intention of introducing a standards commissioner for members of the judiciary.

Abela and his administration should stop acting like autocrats, who are uncomfortable with scrutiny and accountability. They should lead by example before trying to impose ethical standards on others in the public domain.