What Assurance Do I Have That My Appeal in the Libel Proceedings Instituted by Manuel Delia Was Decided Solely on Legal Grounds?

The Times has published in full the letter that Judge Wenzu Mintoff sent to the Prime Minister. In that letter, Judge Mintoff refers to discussions he had with the Prime Minister concerning his possible appointment as Chief Justice. This raises an important question: whether similar discussions or communications also took place with the Leader of the Opposition or with other influential figures, including the Archbishop.

Judge Mintoff also refers to Newsbook, noting that the four names the Opposition reportedly intended to propose — including his own — were first made public in Church media.

Furthermore, in his letter, Judge Mintoff makes serious allegations concerning the conduct of the Prime Minister, referring to events that allegedly occurred when the Prime Minister was still practising as a lawyer, while Judge Mintoff himself was serving on the bench. This raises an obvious and legitimate question: if such conduct was believed to be improper or unlawful, why was it not formally reported at the time? Ordinarily, allegations of misconduct of that gravity would be expected to trigger immediate reporting to the competent authorities.

A further question naturally arises as to the timing of these allegations, which have surfaced only after it became evident that the Government, and therefore the Prime Minister, was not considering Judge Mintoff for the post of Chief Justice.

What is even more concerning is that this entire saga unfolded immediately after a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal, presided over by Judge Wenzu Mintoff, in a libel case instituted against me by Manuel Delia. On the morning of that same day, the names of four judges reportedly being considered for the post of Chief Justice were made public by Newsbook. Following the delivery of the court’s judgment, the Nationalist Party, with the support of Repubblika and their allies, narrowed their preference to a single candidate: Judge Wenzu Mintoff.

In his judgment, Judge Mintoff not only confirmed the decision delivered by the Magistrates’ Court but went further by making comments concerning my academic credentials, remarks that the first court had not made.

In light of what has recently emerged in the press, I no longer feel a sense of serenity regarding the judgment delivered by Judge Mintoff.

Unlike what normally occurs when the Court of Appeal delivers a libel judgment, media reporting in this case did not subside. The case continued to attract coverage and was even mentioned by the Archbishop of Malta, Charles J. Scicluna, during a sermon delivered at the University of Malta’s church. In that sermon, I was described as a liar. Judge Mintoff’s judgment provided the basis for the Archbishop’s remarks, and many interpreted the message as indirectly supportive of Judge Mintoff’s potential candidacy for Chief Justice.

I wish to point out that this sermon was delivered from a throne placed on the altar and in the presence of the President of the Republic of Malta, who formally appoints members of the judiciary in accordance with constitutional procedures. As you are aware, I may still have had further legal remedies available to me, including the possibility of instituting constitutional proceedings. In my view, the subsequent developments prejudiced my position. 

Lawyer Georg Sapiano subsequently invoked the same judgment publicly to call for my expulsion from the University. Then, the matter was taken into hand by Steve Mallia, the archbishop’s friend, who wrote an article in The Times to attack my academic credentials, titled “An Inconvenient Truth”.

I also wish to note that the judgment was delivered on 4 February, when no official nominations for the post of Chief Justice had yet been made public. Manuel Delia is publicly known for his activism with Repubblika. Following the judgment, Repubblika publicly advocated for the appointment of Judge Mintoff as Chief Justice. The tone of the reported communication suggests that Judge Mintoff was interested in the position and anticipated bipartisan support. Let’s not forget that, by coincidence, it was the church media that first mentioned Wenzu Mintoff as a good candidate for the bench.

As a citizen who does not belong to any political party or NGO, I find myself in a vulnerable position when confronted simultaneously by media campaigns and judicial authority.

In a country governed by the rule of law, breaches of judicial ethical standards must be taken seriously. While judicial decisions remain legally valid unless overturned, public confidence in the administration of justice depends on the integrity and impartiality of those who deliver them.

I am writing out of concern. Like any other citizen, I expect that when I go to court, I will find justice administered impartially, not circumstances that may give rise to the perception that judicial decisions are influenced by considerations unrelated to the merits of the case.

There should be no room in our system for breaches of judicial ethics. The Times implied that Wenzu Mintoff’s letter was in breach of the code of ethics of judges. 

At the same time, our constitutional framework makes the removal of judges particularly difficult, as it requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority. While judicial independence must be safeguarded, accountability mechanisms must also inspire public confidence.

If a judge considers it appropriate to communicate directly with the Cabinet Secretary to express dissatisfaction with a matter affecting his professional interests, this inevitably raises serious concerns about the proper boundaries between the judiciary and other influential actors in public life. Judicial authority depends not only on actual independence but on the consistent appearance of impartiality. Conduct of this nature risks undermining that appearance. It may raise legitimate questions about whether similar communications, whether overt or indirect, could occur with other institutional bodies, such as Church authorities, NGOs, or political actors, thereby eroding public confidence in the neutrality of judicial decision-making.

If there is an “inconvenient truth” in this entire saga, it lies in Judge Mintoff’s email. That email raises serious concerns regarding the appearance of proximity between members of the judiciary and individuals occupying positions of political influence. It also raises questions about whether judicial decisions may be perceived as being delivered in circumstances that create expectations of professional advancement or reward, particularly where such decisions appear to shield individuals who, in the view of many, should not have been shielded.