Claim: Malta’s judiciary is in favour of raising judges’ retirement age.
Verdict: The sitting chief justice said he was ‘disappointed’ that a bill proposing reforms, which included raising judges’ retirement age was not approved, but he did not expressly refer to the retirement age issue.
A heated episode of talk show Il-Każin featured prominent government and opposition figures discussing Malta’s judiciary and rule of law, with several contentious statements emerging throughout the debate.
In one segment, opposition MP Darren Carabott rebutted the suggestion that Malta’s judiciary had supported the move to raise judges’ retirement age, telling an audience member who raised the argument that it needed to be “substantiated”.
The issue arose amidst a broader discussion on the appointment of Malta’s next chief justice, with the incumbent Mark Chetcuti having reached retirement age in early February.
The government and opposition have been unable to agree on a successor, with talks having dragged on for over two months.
Government figures have frequently argued that a bill presented last year to, among other things, raise judges’ retirement age, could have avoided the current stalemate, had it been approved.
The reforms proposed a series of changes to Malta’s judiciary, most pertinently offering judges the option to retire at the age of 70, rather than the current mandatory retirement age of 68.
This would have meant that incumbent Mark Chetcuti would have served a further two years in the role before the hunt for his successor would kick off.
However, being a constitutional amendment, the reforms required the support of two-thirds of parliament to be pushed through.
The bill failed to make it through parliament, with the opposition voting against the amendments, saying it was against piecemeal amendments to the constitution, rather than wholesale reform.
The issue was raised during Il-Każin when an audience member asked Darren Carabott whether the opposition agreed with raising judges’ retirement age, describing this change as having been suggested by the judiciary.
The question prompted an instant response from Carabott, who asked for the claim to be substantiated.
At the time when the bills were moved, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard had said that the proposed amendments had been discussed with the association of judges, with some being motivated by proposals by the chief justice himself.
Attard had also tabled a signed agreement with the association representing the judiciary, in which the association pushed for the introduction of a standards commissioner for the judiciary. However, the agreement made no mention of the other proposed amendments on the table, including that of raising the judiciary’s retirement age.
Shortly after the bills were shot down, the chief justice returned to the topic at the opening of the forensic year, describing his “personal disappointment” at parliament’s inability to find a consensus on the amendments and push them through.
Chetcuti stopped short of expressing his views on each amendment within the bill, instead just commenting on two proposed amendments which he had suggested in previous speeches, neither of which was the raising of the judiciary’s retirement age.
Previous chief justices had spoken more directly about raising retirement ages across the judiciary.
In 2009, then-chief justice Vincent de Gaetano called for judges’ mandatory retirement age to be changed from 65 to 68.
However, he added, a chief justice should vacate the post and go back to being a regular judge upon turning 65.
The judiciary’s retirement age was eventually raised to 68 in November 2020.
Verdict
A bill presented by the government last year proposed raising judges’ retirement age to 70, from the current 68, among a host of other changes.
The bill, which required two-thirds parliamentary support, was rejected by the opposition and never came into force.
The current chief justice later expressed his “disappointment” at parliament’s inability to agree on the bill.
However, he did not specifically refer to the matter of raising retirement age in his speech, instead focusing on two other proposals in the bill, both of which he had previously championed.
