By executing a judicial reshuffle to remove Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech from the financial crimes court, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti is not using the same standards he had applied with Magistrate Joe Mifsud over his irregular behaviour. Magistrate Joe Mifsud was actually reported to the Commission for the Administration of Justice by the Chief Justice.
In defense of the Chief Justice, Joe Mifsud was reprimanded for something that he had done publicly, and on Magistrate Donatella Frendo, so far, only one lawyer has testified against her. The Chief Justice in principle has to follow the law by the letter and can not sway from it or risk ambiguity – they are, after all, the ultimate legal reference. Yet, it is also for this very reason, that upon being told of very serious allegations by multiple eyewitnesses who have no connection with each other, the Chief Justice should also have had the responsibility and obligation to pass on these allegations to the police for verification.
I agree that there is a very big difference between hearsay and very serious allegations, but when there are multiple eyewitnesses who are alleging serious allegations against a member of the judiciary that can amount to corruption, the risk of ignoring these allegations is greater than following up on them and investigating thoroughly. Not to mention that in this particular case, the judicial member in question was also responsible for very important and high-profile cases.
Website Editor
Historian and Publisher
Leave a Reply