Abela’s position is vulnerable after judge’s letter

There are two aspects to the ‘explosive’ letter that Judge Lawrence Mintoff wrote to Castille that require reflection: The apparent ease by which two independent branches of the state communicate informally; and the damning content of the letter that casts a shadow on how Robert Abela discharges his duties.

On the first issue, it is worrying to see the apparent ease by which a judge and the prime minister can communicate outside official channels. It is worrying because it raises serious question marks about the unseen pressures that there may be on the judiciary from the other branches of power.

According to the letter, Robert Abela as a lawyer and when a member of parliament, tried to pressure Mintoff to amend a sentence in a civil law suit for damages filed by victims of the 2015 Paqpaqli għall-Istrina charity event. Abela had no hesitation to threaten an employee in the judge’s office that he would see to it that her employment will be terminated. The audacity of having a lawyer, let alone a member of parliament, go down this road is not something that should be overlooked—this is not a normal situation.

And in the circumstances, we just wonder what pressure may have been applied on other branches of the legal system such as the police and the attorney general.

It is also sad that when Abela applied pressure on Mintoff’s employee, the judge did not report the matter to the relevant authorities at the time. He had a duty to do so. It is good that Mintoff stood up to Abela’s badgering but it was not enough. The badgering; the pressure; the threat was potentially criminal in nature.

Even Mintoff’s very own letter to Cabinet members is in breach of the judiciary’s code of ethics that bars them from communicating with members of the executive.

While we acknowledge that Malta is a small community where proximity and familiarity are par for the course, what we have witnessed thus far in this case is immensely worrying.

But then there is also the disconcerting content of the letter, which requires clear answers from the prime minister.

For starters, Mintoff claims that the reasons he was given by the prime minister for not supporting his nomination for chief justice is that his name was put forward by the Opposition. Indeed, Abela told Mintoff he could not choose a chief justice from any of the four names reportedly put forward by the Nationalist Party because it would bolster Alex Borg’s “stature” and anger “party diehards”.

This is a partisan way of going about the appointment of a chief justice and proves the point that such talks between the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition should be held behind closed doors. Unfortunately, it was Abela who opened pandora’s box when he unilaterally forged ahead with a parliamentary motion to appoint Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera despite knowing he had no consensus on the name.

The letter confirms what many suspected—Abela was only interested in playing a political game on the chief justice to try and corner the Opposition with frivolous claims that Alex Borg is beholden to the likes of Jason Azzopardi and Repubblika. This argument is nothing more than a broken record that only massages the ego of Labour diehards and impresses no one else.

The other claim is that the prime minister’s intention was to postpone the appointment of a new chief justice until after the general election. Ostensibly, this reasoning is premised on the assumption that Labour will win the election and be able to push forward anyone it wants while the Opposition will be in disarray.

But the more serious allegations made by Mintoff concern Abela’s behaviour as a lawyer and MP in the Paqpaqli case. Mintoff did not mince his words: “For Dr Abela money was more important than the judiciary’s independence.”

This means that to cream off higher fees from his client, Abela was willing to apply undue pressure on a member of the judiciary, while also using his parliamentary position to ask questions about compensation paid out by the government.

These are extremely concerning allegations, which the prime minister must address with clarity, honesty and transparency. The claims made by Mintoff have put the prime minister in an extremely vulnerable position.

While Mintoff’s behaviour has scuppered his own chances of becoming chief justice and pretty much rendered his position as judge untenable, it would be a gross mistake if Abela believes he can simply sweep this episode underneath the carpet. This is not a normal situation. It cannot be business as usual. The prime minister has to give a thorough explanation of his behaviour if he does not want his position to swiftly go from vulnerable to untenable.