When public debate slips into disrespect, the integrity of our institutions is put at risk. Giovanni Bonello’s latest article raises serious questions about the limits of criticism and the responsibility that comes with a distinguished legal career.

Since when has it become ethical for a member of the legal profession and a former judge of the European Court of Human Rights to criticise judgments of the Maltese courts by addressing them as “Jaqq”? This is what readers of The Times were confronted with in an article penned by former Justice Giovanni Bonello, titled “More colossal human rights deceptions – interim measures” and published on 26 November 2025.

It is both odd and entirely unacceptable that a former judge such as Bonello chose to write what may have been intended as an analysis of Maltese judgments related to alleged breaches of human rights, but did so in a manner that degraded the judiciary.

Articles that discuss judgments are important, particularly when written in a scholarly and respectful manner. Legal debate on judgments and the developments emerging from the Maltese courts and the European Court of Human Rights is both enlightening and a valuable contribution to Maltese legal literature.

However, as Justice Minister Jonathan Attard stated in a Facebook post, criticism of judgments delivered by the Maltese judiciary must remain within acceptable parameters. The tone and wording of Bonello’s article are considered by various members of the legal profession to fall outside the limits of responsible freedom of expression.

Respect for the courts is essential to ensure the rule of law. It is therefore surprising that a former judge, once regarded as one of Malta’s leading human rights lawyers, would choose to attack the Maltese judiciary in such a disrespectful manner. Had a Labour representative written an article of this nature, one can easily imagine the predictable outcry from the usual brigade.

Photo: Giovanni Bonello former ECHR Judge (Photo Ray Attard)