Please, no more wheels within wheels – this country has had enough
Magistrate Scerri Herrera embraces Lydia Abela, daughter-in-law of the chairman of the Commission for the Administration of Justice, at her 45th birthday party.
Much as I respect, admire and like the president of the republic, George Abela, and deeply regret the fact that Joseph Muscat was favoured over him by the Labour Party’s delegates in the leadership contest, I can’t help feeling that he should have stood back from this one.
His son, the lawyer Robert Abela (who is currently fighting for Noel Arrigo on appeal) and his daughter-in-law Lydia Abela (a new Labour Party official) are such close friends of Magistrate Scerri Herrera that they were among the guests at the birthday party where most of the now infamous ‘Facebook photos’ were taken.
Lydia Abela featured in several of those photographs, in positions of great familiarity with the magistrate.
A person of perceived integrity like George Abela should know enough to stand back from a situation like this and allow others in the Commission for the Administration of Justice to get on with it instead.
He certainly should not be the one speaking for the Commission on this matter, still less chairing the commission during its deliberations.
This is not because of anything untoward that he might do himself – heaven forfend – but because, by not standing back from this case, he exposes the Commission for the Administration of Justice to the suspicion that wheels are turning within wheels.
That suspicion alone is enough to undermine trust in the Commission. In a situation like this, the facts – that George Abela will not seek to protect the magistrate because she is a close friend of his son and daughter-in-law – are irrelevant. The suspicion, however unfounded, will remain – and that is detrimental to public trust.
That is why all cause for suspicion must be avoided, regardless of the facts.
It is the essential argument that underpins my objections to Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s behaviour. If the chairman of the Commission for the Administration of Justice – who is also the president of the republic – does not understand this, then matters have certainly come to a sorry pass.
The Times, today
Blogger’s claims not being probed
Change in code of ethics
The allegations made by columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia on Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera are not being investigated by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, The Times has learnt.
President George Abela, who chairs the commission, said yesterday that the body had “taken note of what is being said”. However, when pressed further, Dr Abela said the commission was not investigating the case.
“The commission is not investigating. It has taken note and then it will see how to act,” he said.
Ms Caruana Galizia made a series of allegations on the lifestyle of Magistrate Scerri Herrera in her blog. Ms Caruana Galizia argued that aspects of the magistrate’s personal life and her behaviour were inappropriate for someone in her position.
The columnist even posted a number of photographs of the magistrate taken from the social networking website Facebook.
Earlier this week, the commission amended the code of ethics of the judiciary, barring magistrates and judges from becoming members of social network sites, citing propriety as the reason.
When asked whether the change was specifically introduced because of the ongoing polemic, Dr Abela said the decision was taken on the recommendation of Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano.
The Chief Justice proposed the amendment at a meeting of the commission on Monday.
“The commission evaluated and examined it and agreed with it,” Dr Abela said, adding that propriety was important.
Asked whether he believed the publication of photos and the allegations made could have tarnished the reputation of the judiciary, the President replied that what was said in the commission was confidential. He repeated this when asked whether the commission would delve further into the issue.
The allegations have led Magistrate Scerri Herrera to file a police report “to protect her integrity” and she later abstained from presiding over two unrelated libel cases involving Ms Caruana Galizia.
50 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
If the tentacles have reached so far up the echelons of democratic society, then I see no hope for this country.
Tal-biki
Before stories were posted on this blog:
1. Had the Commission already investigated the magistrate’s presiding over a criminal case involving her current partner’s brother before the case was highlighted here? If not, why not?
2.Had the Commission already investigated the presiding of the magistrate over cases in which her brother was defence counsel? If not, why not?
3. Does the Commission act solely act on formal reports filed with the Commission itself?
4. If knowledge of wrongdoing or potential jeopardisation of the trust and impartiality essential to the proper functioning of the courts reaches the Commission, does it allow such wrongdoing to continue in the absence of a formal report?
3. What is the legal basis for NOT investigating a case in the absence of a formal report?
“The allegations are not being investigated and the Commission has taken note and is considering what to do next.”
1. Has investigation been ruled out altogether?
2. Other than investigation, what course of action is open to the Commission?
The thing which surprises me in all this is: why are we waking up to this social reality only now?
Malta consists of 400,000 people huddled together on a piece of rock 25km by 15km (or something like that). We are somehow all inter-related.
Our society functions exactly because people have learned to strike a balance between keeping their distance, when required, but also using channels of influence when this would bring better results.
People in Malta do not solve their problems by going only to official channels. Let´s say you have a problem with some government entity. What do you do? You try hard to remember if you “know” someone there. And contact that person directly. This does not imply that something illegal has been done, but we Maltese know how to use shortcuts.
[Daphne – That is not a good thing, Albert. It is one of the anthropological indicators of a backward/undeveloped society. It is one of the things that other societies developed OUT OF. It is has nothing to do with size. There are towns in Britain and Germany that are the size of Malta and are run autonomously through a council. But people don’t ring each other for favours or do the nudge-nudge thing because the risk of negative consequences is too great – and this isn’t just the law I’m talking about but the censure of their peers and of society in general. The situation in Malta is bolstered by general acceptance: people don’t criticise the system or the individuals who manipulate it because they know they might wish to manipulate it themselves.]
I mean it has been common knowledge for ages that lawyers are known to appear in cases in front of their sisters, or their fathers. When I point this out to lawyer friends they smile, shrug their shoulders, and say “This is Malta, we are all related”.
One politician once began pointing fingers at the “friends of friends” mentality. Yet he was made to disappear prematurely.
[Daphne – Read my column on Thursday about this subject, based not on my opinion but on decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.]
Let us not fool ourselves. The tentacles have been reaching so far up for very long now, even before independence, and this problem is not restricted to politics.
This issues reflects a chasm between the privileged/unprivileged and people with the right connections/people without any as opposed to Nationalist/Labour.
Daphne, I have never seen you addressing this issue properly before. While I think that you should seek to have your case treated fairly at all costs, you would be more credible when you start addressing this issue even when you do not have a direct interest.
[Daphne – I have written about it many times. I was, for instance, the only one who took Judge Noel Arrigo to task for giving, in court before another judge, a character testimonial for a cocaine courier. Because of that, he couldn’t even conceal his venomous feelings towards me in a libel suit filed by KullHadd ‘journalist’ (now lawyer) Joe Mifsud, decided against me, and his decision was overturned by the court of appeal.I
I know that you are one of the few who dared in a few cases and I admire you for that. However, something tells me that these cases happen much more frequently and unfortunately journalists, including you, pick and choose which stories to uncover depending on one’s political or social affiliations.
[Daphne – Not at all. But I have to know about them. Rumour is not enough. There is a well-known story, for example – a few years old now – about a magistrate’s husband (not the magistrate under discussion) walking into her chambers and finding her in flagrante with a lawyer. The marriage ended and the husband has since died. Of course, you will then get the sort of people who comment on timesofmalta.com saying ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ (so let’s do away with the law courts altogether, then) and ‘It’s her private life’. They have a different mindset, they just don’t get the point, and it’s useless trying to make them see why a magistrate having sex in chambers with a lawyer (not this magistrate, again I add) or a magistrate deciding the case of her lover’s brother while concealing the relationship is reprehensible.]
Let the dead rest in peace.
I may or may not be correct in my assessment of the situation, but it really reminds me of the cleaning of the Augean stables – a Herculean task indeed! I’ve felt that way (i.e., that I see no hope for this country) quite some time ago and decided that it was time to get a breath of fresh air. And I suspect I’m not the only one who had to take this difficult decision.
x’tal biki? Tal-biza, to say to least!
Tal-misthija
To me, it all stinks to high heaven.
This comment, published in The Times today in regard to the above bears repeating:
Peter Vella (54 minutes ago)
This is just unbelievable! Hasn’t the trust in the judiciary been damaged enough by the bribery case? The commission has the duty to determine whether the allegations made are true, and if true whether the behavior of the magistrate concerned is subject to sanction or not. This is what the public expects. Not investigating is simply unacceptable and will not help at all in restoring faith in the judiciary.
Malta’s just too small to be a functioning, non-corrupt democracy. Pick out any two people in the same room and somewhere you will find a connection between them.
You may well be right, but does that mean we should not try, or that we should accept the situation?
The ones who really get my goat (they weren’t in short supply when the Noel Arrigo case was in full swing) are those who go on about he who is without sin casting the first stone. Why bother?
Ghandna persuna li qed taghmel allegazzjonijiet serji fuq persuna ohra li hi magistrat.
Il kummisjoni ghall-amministrazzjoni tal-gustizzja jidrilha li m’ghandiex tinvestiga jekk l-allegazzjonojiet humiex minnhom jew le.
Mela issa min hu fir-responsabbilta li jara jekk l-allegazzjonijiet humiex minnhom jew le?
Il-president ta Malta? li hu c-chairman ta l-istess kummisjoni ghall-amministrazzjoni tal-gustizza?
Il-prim ministru?
Il-ministru tal-gustizza?
Il-kummissarju tal-puluzzija?
Jew il-prim imhallef?
I think President Abela is keeping his distance from this whole issue. The commission approved the recommendations of the Chief Justice.
If the commission finds any wrongdoing by Magistrate Herrera, what happens next? I think there’s nothing effective that can be done.
Dr Abela will save the commission from that embarrassment.
The commission cannot find any wrongdoing if there is no investigation. The President says that there is no investigation going on.
Daphne – ‘Much as I respect, admire and like the president of the republic, George Abela, and deeply regret the fact that Joseph Muscat was favoured over him by the Labour Party’s delegates in the leadership contest, I can’t help feeling that he should have stood back from this one.’
I’m with you on this, but what makes you think that the president didn’t? What if in principle both George and Robert were against the idea and let Lydia decide on this one? She’s not exactly a kiddo and surely should be held responsible for her actions. Mhux minnha suppost jigi li tirrispetta l-integrita’ tal-familja li sabhet lilha nnifisha fiha? I would think so.
[Daphne – Yes, but once she’s landed them in it, they have to act accordingly, and not carry on as though nothing happened and say ‘Heqq, it’s her and not us.’ She’s now part and parcel of their family. They’re married, not dating.]
So, the Commission has “taken note”, but is not investigating.
The Code of Ethics for Members of the Judiciary is here
http://www.judiciarymalta.gov.mt/file.aspx?f=576
Is it not painfully OBVIOUS that Magistrate Scerri Herrera is in blantant, bla-misthijja, breach of Articles 11, 12 (2nd parragraph), 17 & 25 ?
That said, there is the more serious article 23. This one I will part quote
“Members of the judiciary shall not preside over a case in which they know there exists any one of reasons for being challenged as provided for in the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure or where there exists a manifest danger or prejudice to fair hearing”
The Code is here
http://docs.justice.gov.mt/lom/legislation/english/leg/vol_1/chapt12.pdf
The corresponding article 733 / 734 state that a judge / magistrate cannot be challenged / abstain from a case except for, part quotes,
“if he is related by consaguinity or affinity in a direct line to any of the parties”
(includes brothers, nephews, nieces, great-unles and the sort)
“if he or his spouse is directly or indirectly interested in the event of the suit”
If this matter is EVER investigated, how else could this end except for (excuse my shocking Maltese, I never learnt it during my schooling years)
“Rigward l’allegazzjoni illi il magistrata Consuelo Scerri Herrera kisret l’artikolu 23, u sussegwentament l’artikoli 733/4 tal Codici ta Organizzazjoni …., din il kummissjoni trid tiehu in konsiderazzjoni illi il perit Musumeci mghuwiex la ir-ragel, hu, kugin, zijju, biz-zijju, nannu u la neputi etc etc, tal magistrata Scerri Herrera. Il fatt illi il magistrata Scerri Herrera kella, u sa’illum ghad ghanda, relazzjoni intima sa l’ahhar, mal perit Musumeci, mighiex bizzejed biex tikonvinci lil din il kumissjoni illi il magistrata Scerri Herrera seta ikolla interess confliggenti, lanqas indirettament, biex tiggiudica il caz criminali contra hu il perit Musumeci.
Il ligi sag-gurnata ta’illum hekk tghid. Sakemm inzidu, bil miktub, il-kelma “lover” fil-lista ta ‘hut, kugini u buz-nannu’, ma sar xejn hazin f’dan il kaz”.
Now THAT gives a whole new perspective to “blind justice”.
Min jiktibhom dal-porkeriji ta’ verbali u rapporti? Qisu l-Malti ta’ xi l-1850. Mela wheels within wheels oiled by illiterate posers.
I’d rather take a Newrofen (deliberately misspelled) than explain.
The words ‘lodge’ ‘secrecy’ and ‘corporation’ come to mind after reading through all your articles Mrs Caruana Galizia. I admire your courage in trying to expose how society can be easily manipulated – by a few – to accept the ‘norm’. We are constantly being shown ‘the movie’ (the media playing a pivotal role) and for some reason accept it at face value.
Keep up the good work.
Can it be that the Commission is waiting for your testimony in court? By their reasoning they may dirsegard what is written on a blog but not allegations made under oath in court. Or am I wrong?
Why wait at all? The commission could have acted BEFORE these matters were brought to light.
Daphne,
I think the President and the commission is not excluding anything in the present process. I have watched three times the short interview on times online and never the President of the Republic and therefore the chairman of the commission are excluding anything at the time being.
One believes that a certain amount of caution is required. Read between the lines.
[Daphne – That is not the point. This is the point: the chairman of the commission has to take a step back because the public perception is that he is compromised by his son/daughter-in-law’s friendliness with the magistrate. This applies whatever move the commission decides to make. He is compromised further in that he was one of those who advised Prime Minister Sant to appoint her as a magistrate. The appointment was made in 1997, when Dr Abela was official legal consultant to the prime minister and attending all cabinet meetings. Even if he now regrets that decision, he is still not the ideal person to help decide on matters pertaining to its consequences.]
I cannot agree with Daphne. Because these things do not happen in Malta
Let us consider the following scenario, in BananaLand, where these things DO happen.
Doctor-Chim-Pan-Zee leads the Banana-Pickers’ Party of BananaLand. One of his two Deputy Leaders is Doctor Peel.
Among the Banana-Pickers’s Party MPs is MP Banana Joe.
Leader Doctor-Chim-Pan-Zee does not like MP Banana Joe. And he is also at loggerheads with Deputy Leader Doctor Peel.
MP Banana Joe becomes overtly and overly critical of Doctor-Chim-Pan-Zee’s leadership. Like Doctor Peel, who is, however, more cautious.
MP Banana Joe feels he should be made Minister. Doctor Peel feels HE should be Prime Minister.
Now, isn’t it very very probable that MP Banana Joe and Doctor Peel end up finding some sort of affinity?
Isn’t it very very probable that Doctor Peel becomes a sort of Father Confessor (like the one from the Banana-Growers’ Party who was then appointed Commissioner in Macondo) for MPs disgruntled with Doctor-Chim-Pan-Zee?
Isn’t it very very probable that MP Banana Joe goes often to confess to Doctor Peel?
Isn’t it very very probable that the common bad feelings for Doctor-Chim-Pan-Zee should bring MP Banana Joe and Doctor Peel close together?
Isn’t it in Doctor Peel’s interest to muster enough support to topple Doctor-Chim-Pan-Zee or (later) his Poodle?
Had Daphne lived in BananaLand, wouldn’t she have been justified to worry that Doctor Peel might wish to help out Banana Joe’s sister?
But, needless to say, Daphne does not live in BananaLand. She lives in Malta. So this story is completely irrelevant to our local situation. (Any resemblance to real persons, living, dead, or undead, is purely coincidental.)
And therefore I cannot agree with her publicly-aired worries.
By the bye: the official name of BananaLand is Republic of BananaLand, and it has 13 national days.
It’s easier if you explain with Muppets.
I know this has nothing to do with the subject but I’m taking a break from correcting and wanted to share this snippet from an essay with you:
“A country I would like to visit is Spain because they let the bulls run in the streets and everyone throws tomatoes at them.”
It sounds just like home – except we’re not allowed to throw tomatoes.
This comment posted on timesofmalta.com makes me weep. Instead of demanding the highest standards of propriety, this Anthony Dimech is implying that it is OK for people in public office to cheat and ignore all sense of ethics. He is also implying that the unsavoury behaviour of Magistrate Herrera is the norm and not the exception.
Anthony Dimech (3 hours, 53 minutes ago)
“Jekk jinvestigaw se jinholoq prceident ikrah ghax ikollu jigi investigat kull min ghandu pozizjoni gholja fis-servizz publiku. Ghax ha nghidu kif inhi hadd mhu perfett u kif qal Kristu ‘Min m’ghandux dnubiet iwaddab l-ewwel gebla.”
It seems it is time to replace the George Cross on the national flag with a banana!
I do not agree completely with you on the case of the appointment of the magistrate in question, as Dr Eddie Fenech Adami was not compromised by the appoinmtement of Dr Arrigo. Further, his son daughter in-law does not feature in the magistrates’ behaviour.
My point is, the allegations brought forward by yourself are and will be investigated in a serious matter, or at least I hope so.
For all I know the allegations could be entirely false but aren’t they serious enough to be looked into? What exactly does it take for a judge or magistrate to be investigated?
From L-orizzont’s coverage of the Noel Arrigo trial – it makes for VERY interesting reading:
Meta rrefera għal dak li qalet il-prosekuzzjoni dwar il-fatt li l-eks-Prim Imħallef dam dawn is-snin kollha biex stqarr li Anthony Grech Sant verament kien wassallu envelop b’Lm5,000 u dan il-fatt ammettih wara li kellu l-opportunità jisma’ l-provi kollha, l-Avukat Giglio ikkonferma dak li qal l-akkużat fix-xiehda tiegħu meta nsista li stenna dan il-mument biex jagħmel din l-istqarrija fuq parir li kien ingħata mill-avukati tiegħu wara li tressaq il-Qorti.
“Konna jien u l-Avukat George Abela, illum il-President ta’ Malta (li qabel kien ukoll l-avukat difensur tal-eks-Prim Imħallef Arrigo), li tajnih il-parir biex din l-istqarrija jagħmilha fil-mument opportun u nerfgħu l-piż tal-parir li tajna għax nemmnu li dan hu dritt fundamentali”, saħaq l-avukat difensur.
Aha! Daphne Caruana Galizia seems to have opened a can of worms ! And ‘expired’ by the look of things. The statement provided by the Commission and printed on today’s edition of The Times, seems to have proved that. I think that the ‘ordinary citizen’ has a right to know what was discussed during this meeting. Confidential, my left foot. We are not asking the Commission if Mr. X or Ms.Y wears satin or diamond studded tangas.
Daphne
I can understand your initial reaction, but having now listened to the President’s short interview on Times on line, my perception is that the Commision has not excluded at all any investigation. Indeed, the President did emphasise that what the Commission has so far discused is confidential, meaning, inter alia, that nothing has been ruled out.
My impression is that the Commission will first allow the forthcoming defamation case to be decided, and most probably appealed from. Then it will take a stand on whether or not to investigate and pronounce its deliberations.
With regard to the President’s integrity, rest assured that he will not jeopardise his honour in any way or because of any one, no matter who. His decisions of 1998, even though he had to confront a typhoon, bear witness to his clout and fortitude. Because of this stand and others, he is respected by all and sundry. Be patient. I am confident, that time will prove me right.
“what the Commission has so far discussed is confidential, meaning, inter alia, that nothing has been ruled out.”
How does one follow from the other? It is possible that investigation has been ruled out but we won’t be told because the Commission’s deliberations are confidential.
Daphne it is clear that you have a personal issue with the Magistrate Scerri Herrera. So why don’t you stop involving others who do not form part of this saga. Others who were always consistant in their principles and values and their ethics towards their responsibility are undoubted.Persons kwnown for their high integrity and respect.
If it is being anticipated that any recommendation by the Commission for the Administration of Justice will again be thwarted by the politicians, that is no excuse for the Commission not to make its recommendation simply to avoid any embarrassment to anybody. Let everyone do his duty and let everyone assume responsibility for his actions.
@Alan
Nail on the head. Just print your very valid points and send them to the palace. Surely President Abela realises that his family members have put him in an embarrassing position of conflict of interest in this case.
The man is respected by the large majority of the public, and it would be a great shame if this business changes all that.
No matter which way one looks at this disgraceful turn of events, one thing is clear. Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera’s position has become untenable.
I had high hopes that the Commission and Office of the President would distant themselves and take action. Unfortunately, no or little action is very sad. It strengthens my prerception that Magistrate Herrera has very strong-rooted friends whi will help her. It’s making a mockery of the Office of the President, that’s all I can say.
It’s making a mockery of the justice system, you mean.
Am I getting this right? Is the Commission for the Administration of Justice reactive or proactive? What sets the Commission’s wheels in motion? If I read again about casting the first stone, I think I will be sick.
Ironically, I am not surprised at this, and why are you so surprised at all this. You (and the media in general) have put Gorg Abela on a pedestal, while all of you conveniently overlooked his history.
I will remember him for only two things.
In 1996, he was part of the trio-leadership of the MLP which won the election on an anti-EU and anti-VAT programme.
In 1998, he did not want to call an election, implying he was happy to stay out of the EU, regardless of all that talk about a U-turn on the EU afterward his resignation from Labour.
I had to read Alan’s post over and over as I thought I could not understand the real meaning. In other words a magistrate cannot preside if their spouse is involved but it’s OK if it’s the lover/partner? The mind boggles.
I have been reading many postings on this blog for quite some time now and made my own opinion and assumptions as regards this so-called saga.
This is the only blog where we are getting some food for thought. All newspapers, newsrooms, websites and other sort of media seem to be completely detached from these kind of news.
Unfortunately, most Maltese people are more interested in commenting on a crap and boring show (why is it that most female singers seem a bit chubby and all male dancers are perfectly fit) like the Eurosong festival than making their voice heard on such serious situations. Too much trash TV makes you dumb.
So having said that, I do support Daphne to continue with her postings. We alternative (or are we progressive?) people out here need to be aware of what is really going on in this country.
George Abela does not need any Daphne or any media in general to place him on a pedestal.
His integrity and values speak for themselves. His achievements always portrayed success stories in his posts.
Furthermore, it was highly evident, in all the various surveys that were carried out during his run for the MLP leadership that his popularity and is respect is nationwide.
[Daphne – It’s no secret that I rather like him, too. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think he is wrong not to stand back from this one.]
Fyi
http://www.it-torca.com/news.asp?newsitemid=9158
Of wheels within wheels… and hands within muppets…
http://images.google.no/imgres?imgurl=http://laudyms.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kermit1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://laudyms.wordpress.com/2009/05/&usg=__D2vavj-5ZdcR09hxOL2U93m8Osk=&h=351&w=468&sz=29&hl=no&start=17&itbs=1&tbnid=ijqQQTm8lBK21M:&tbnh=96&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3DKermit%26hl%3Dno%26sa%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1