Respect for members of the judiciary | Ramona Attard

Ramona Attard, Labour MP

I was recently shocked by former European Court of Human Rights Judge Giovanni Bonello’s attack on members of the judiciary. He described them as “midgets in gowns” who, according to him, “have peppered their judicial mania to protect at all costs with idiotic mantras which they manically pluck out of thin air.” He even referred to our judges and magistrates as “boot lickers.”

In this opinion piece, Judge Bonello criticises recent court decisions on human-rights breaches and insists that constitutional law provides not only for redress after violations occur but also for their prevention. According to him, this preventive responsibility is not being fulfilled by our courts, and citizens are therefore not being protected in the first place.

This is a point that, in principle, deserves discussion. I welcome an open debate on how best to prevent violations before they occur. Interim measures can be vital in urgent cases, and it is legitimate to discuss when they should be granted, how courts assess urgency, and whether procedures can be strengthened. A mature democracy does not fear this conversation. I welcome it.

Where I strongly disagree is with the tone and method adopted. The judiciary is a constitutional pillar. You do not protect human rights by publicly mocking judges, presuming bad faith as a default, or portraying the bench as a caricature.

Judge Bonello’s experience in Strasbourg is acknowledged. However, he has not served as a sitting judge in our domestic courts, and therefore has not carried responsibility for the day-to-day realities of Maltese court administration, caseloads, and procedural constraints.

I respect the work done daily by magistrates and judges, and I believe Malta has a solid and impartial system. Of course, we must continue to invest in and reform our courts, but we should also acknowledge the dedicated professionals who work within them every day.

Let me state this with full clarity: I respect each and every member of the judiciary, and I condemn the disparaging terms used in Bonello’s article, because they undermine public trust in the very institution tasked with safeguarding rights.

Malta is continuously scrutinised internationally. When commentary unjustly paints our courts as wilfully hostile to human rights, it is not only domestic confidence that suffers, it also affects Malta’s standing abroad and the credibility of our judicial system. Criticism should push reform forward, not broadcast contempt that can be weaponised outside our shores. I hope this was not the author’s intention.

It is important to ground this debate in facts. Under Justice Minister Jonathan Attard, Malta has pursued reforms that strengthen the rule of law, cooperation, and judicial capacity. Malta’s Council of Europe Presidency delivered the Valletta Protocol, signed by multiple states, enhancing legal cooperation and modernising cross-border justice. The same period saw judicial modernisation efforts and investment in credibility and efficiency, with Malta gaining traction internationally for institutional improvement. Government has continued issuing public calls and appointments to strengthen the bench and address workload, as part of sustained investment in the courts.

One may still argue for faster progress or different priorities, but the narrative that Malta is indifferent, or worse, hostile to human-rights protection is contradicted by the reform record. As a member within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I take our obligations seriously. Malta’s reforms and international engagement are not cosmetic, they reflect a genuine commitment to higher standards.

What is even more shocking than Giovanni Bonello’s attack on the judiciary is the Opposition’s silence, a deafening silence that speaks volumes.

If the Opposition truly cared about defending the judiciary, we would have heard an immediate condemnation of the rhetoric used against our judges. We did not. Their silence stands in stark contrast to their loudness when it suited them politically.

Only weeks ago, the Opposition accused the justice minister of “attacking” or “influencing” the judiciary in a different controversy, when Attard rightly appealed to the Judicial Appointments Committee to avoid appointing candidates whose selection could have created unnecessary controversy. For that comment, the Opposition’s condemnation was immediate, they claimed that the minister’s remarks “do nothing to serve the judiciary or the justice sector, and in fact undermine the work of Malta's judges and magistrates.”

If there are comments that clearly undermine the work of Malta’s judges and magistrates, these are Bonello’s personal attacks. Yet, wonder of wonders, the Opposition’s reaction was nil.

The Opposition cannot claim to defend the judiciary when it is politically convenient and then look away when it is publicly ridiculed. This double standard does not serve justice, and it certainly does not serve human rights.

Let us have the debate on interim measures. Let us improve procedures where improvement is needed. Let us keep pushing for the prevention of breaches and effective remedies. But let us do so without eroding respect for our courts, without implying that judges are enemies of rights, and without giving Malta an international reputation that is neither fair nor accurate.

Above all, I appeal that in this discussion full respect for everybody’s human rights is maintained. Even Section 41 of the Constitution of Malta, which grants the right to freedom of expression, is limited under sub-article (2) where that freedom damages the reputation and rights of others.

Human rights flourish only where institutions are strong and institutions remain strong only when the judiciary is not attacked irresponsibly or maliciously.