Parliament Rejects Chief Justice Nominee
Malta's Parliament on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, rejected the government's nomination of Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera for the post of Chief Justice. The motion failed to secure the constitutionally mandated two-thirds parliamentary majority, with the vote tally standing at 39 in favour and 34 against. This outcome means that the incumbent Chief Justice, Mark Chetcuti, who reached retirement age on the same day, will provisionally remain in his role to avoid a vacancy in the judiciary.
Constitutional Requirement and Political Deadlock
The requirement for a two-thirds majority for the appointment of a Chief Justice was introduced in July 2020 through Act XLIII of 2020. This reform aimed to depoliticise senior judicial appointments and foster cross-party consensus, making this the first time such a mechanism was applied to a Chief Justice nomination.
The nomination process was marked by significant political disagreement between the ruling Labour Party and the Nationalist Party (PN) opposition. Prime Minister Robert Abela and Justice Minister Jonathan Attard championed Judge Scerri Herrera, asserting her qualifications and seniority. However, Opposition Leader Alex Borg voiced strong objections, citing concerns over Judge Scerri Herrera's 'proximity to political circles' and past controversies. The opposition had reportedly proposed alternative candidates, with Judge Edwina Grima being a preferred choice.
Background and Controversies Surrounding the Nominee
Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera's nomination drew scrutiny due to several factors:
- Her brother, José Herrera, is a prominent Labour Party politician and former minister.
- She had been previously censured by the Commission for the Administration of Justice for breaching the judiciary's code of ethics.
- Reports indicated past legal disputes with the late journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
- She had recused herself from a high-profile criminal trial in 2021 due to alleged close relations between her brother and politicians linked to the case.
The government maintained that Judge Scerri Herrera possessed the necessary experience and knowledge for the role, while the opposition argued that her 'baggage' made her unsuitable for the highest judicial office.
Presidential Intervention and Next Steps
Amidst the escalating political tension, President Myriam Spiteri Debono intervened, urging both the government and opposition to reach an agreement. She held urgent meetings with Justice Minister Attard and Opposition Leader Borg, emphasizing the importance of consensus 'in the interest of the Courts and the Administration of Justice, the Rule of Law, the State, and above all our people'.
The failed vote leaves the path forward for appointing a new Chief Justice uncertain. The constitutional provision dictates that the sitting Chief Justice remains in office if a two-thirds majority is not achieved for a successor, ensuring continuity in the judiciary.
5 Comments
Michelangelo
Her seniority and knowledge were undeniable. A real loss for the judiciary.
Leonardo
Too many red flags with her past. Not fit for the highest judicial office.
Raphael
Government chose the most experienced candidate. Parliament failed its duty.
Donatello
The President's call for consensus is spot on; the country needs a Chief Justice appointed. But the government also needs to propose a candidate without such heavy political baggage to begin with.
Michelangelo
Judge Scerri Herrera certainly has experience, but her past controversies were significant. A cleaner candidate would have made the approval process much smoother.