Five things Judge Mintoff\u2019s letter told us about Robert Abela<\/p>\n
Judge Lawrence Mintoff’s letter has opened up a political crisis for the government. The letter is detailed, direct and descriptive. It sets out specific conversations and episodes, naming dates, contexts and words exchanged.<\/p>\n
The letter also tells us so much about Prime Minister Robert Abela. Things that we already knew about or suspected. How he calculates situations, what his priorities are, and how he goes about trying to get what he wants. Seeing them written down in a letter signed, under oath, by a sitting judge, gives them a new dimension.<\/p>\n
The letter does more harm than good to Abela’s reputation.<\/p>\n
1. A private meeting that strikes at the separation of powers<\/strong><\/p>\n According to the letter Mintoff wrote, the Prime Minister requested a private meeting with the judge on 11 February 2026 because they “needed to talk”. The subject was the unresolved appointment of a new Chief Justice and the fact that Mintoff’s name had appeared in media reports as having been one of the candidates suggested by the Opposition.<\/p>\n The very fact that this meeting took place is significant. A Prime Minister meeting a sitting judge in private to discuss a pending top judicial appointment inevitably raises serious concerns about the separation of powers. From what transpires from the letter this was not a routine institutional exchange but a conversation about his possible appointment and the political ramifications of that choice.<\/p>\n Abela has argued publicly that it is his duty to meet members of the judiciary to gauge interest. Yet, doing so outside a transparent and formally structured process, and without reference to the office of the incumbent Chief Justice, creates at the very least the appearance of executive encroachment into the judicial sphere. The code of ethics is not limited to prohibiting explicit misconduct; it also guards against situations that may undermine public trust.<\/p>\n The Prime Minister in the past has been found to be in breach of ethics, but there were no consequences to his behaviour. There are arguments and counter-arguments on whether there was a breach of ethics on this occasion. What is sure is that the PM could have acted in a more appropriate way.<\/p>\n 2. Merit versus partisan calculation<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the clearest themes in Mintoff’s letter is the extent to which partisan considerations shaped the Prime Minister’s thinking. Mintoff recounts that Abela said appointing someone from the list mentioned in the media would make him appear to be bowing to the Opposition and would cost him the support of his “diehards”. He also referred to the possibility that such a move would allow Opposition Leader Alex Borg to gain stature.<\/p>\n Mintoff states that he rejected this reasoning outright, insisting that the office of Chief Justice should be decided on merit and in the national interest, not on who scores politically. He reminded the Prime Minister that a two-thirds parliamentary majority is required for the appointment, meaning that any agreement would belong to both sides of the House, not one alone.<\/p>\n The picture that emerges from the letter is of a Prime Minister weighing the political optics of an appointment more heavily than the intrinsic qualifications of candidates. Mintoff further recounts that Abela suggested the Opposition intended to “burn through” four names and then advance another candidate. Even if that were the case, the decision on who should lead the judiciary would still require a judgment grounded in competence and independence.<\/p>\n According to Mintoff’s sworn account, the central concern expressed by the Prime Minister was not whether a candidate was the best person for the role, but whether the choice would strengthen or weaken his political standing. That framing turns the appointment of a Chief Justice into a partisan contest rather than a constitutional duty.<\/p>\n 3. From “constitutional crisis” to electoral timing<\/strong><\/p>\n Only weeks ago, the government accused the Opposition of provoking a constitutional crisis by withholding support for a judicial nominee. Yet according to Mintoff’s letter, Abela indicated that the “political temperature” was too hot to make such a decision now and expressed a preference to leave the appointment until after the next general election.<\/p>\n This is one of the most striking elements of the letter. Mintoff recounts telling the Prime Minister that postponing the matter was unacceptable and that for candidates like himself, such delay would effectively close the door. Abela is said to have asked for time to think, suggesting that nothing had been decided and that the door remained open, before later telling Mintoff via WhatsApp that he had never been his choice, citing age and time left before retirement.<\/p>\n If, as Mintoff states, the Prime Minister is prepared to defer filling the country’s highest judicial office because the electoral climate is unfavourable, that stands in sharp contrast to Abela’s own claims that delay itself constitutes a crisis.<\/p>\n A Chief Justice is not a campaign appointment. The office anchors the judiciary and safeguards constitutional order. The tension between the government’s public rhetoric and the position described in Mintoff’s letter suggests a prioritisation of political management over institutional stability.<\/p>\n 4. Pressure, power and the use of office<\/strong><\/p>\n Mintoff attributes the Prime Minister’s “real and proper” opposition to his appointment not to age or merit, but to two earlier episodes in which, as a judge, he confronted Abela.<\/p>\n The first concerns civil cases filed by victims of the Paqpaqli incident. What Mintoff wrote about how Abela used parliamentary questions in pursuit of personal financial interest; how he pressured court staff, threatening one with dismissal; and his insinuation about judicial complicity with then President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca are serious claims.<\/p>\n If Abela behaved in this way as an MP and lawyer, the natural question is what influence he wields now that he is Prime Minister. Is this why nobody from the Labour parliamentary group stands up to say they are in disagreement with him? They were all humiliated in the Jean Paul Sofia case, forced to vote against in Parliament only for the PM to change his mind while protesters were gathering a few days later. Does he instil so much fear in them that they are afraid of speaking up?<\/p>\n The second episode concerns a publication linked to the Labour Party that Mintoff describes as defamatory towards a deceased member of his family. He recounts requesting withdrawal of the book and a public apology, only to be told that the publisher, Sensiela Kotba Soċjalisti, was independent, despite sharing contact details with the party headquarters.<\/p>\n Abela took no action in this situation. The book continued to be advertised and sold, leaving the judge and his family “outraged and insulted”. The implication is that Abela calculated that a withdrawal of the book or a public apology would have cost him political points.<\/p>\n 5. Signals about character and political philosophy<\/strong><\/p>\n Some of the most revealing parts of the letter are the reported remarks. Mintoff recounts that Abela described the appointment of his father, George Abela, as President of the Republic by then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi as a mistake. That cross-party appointment had been widely interpreted at the time as a unifying gesture.<\/p>\n If the Prime Minister now considers such bipartisanship an error, it suggests a political philosophy that views compromise as weakness rather than strength. It aligns with the concerns expressed elsewhere in the letter about not wanting to appear to concede ground to the Opposition. It shows a Prime Minister who is inclined to pursue the interests of his party before the national welfare.<\/p>\n Equally telling, in Mintoff’s account, is how financial considerations in the Paqpaqli cases were pursued. Mintoff frames this as Abela placing money above the independence of the judiciary.<\/p>\n This letter has precipitated the current political crisis. And that letter also provides a detailed insight into how the country’s Prime Minister is described, by a sitting member of the judiciary, as seeing power, politics and the institutions he is entrusted to uphold.<\/p>\n And whatever is written on it will haunt Abela. It is not, as the Prime Minister says, water under the bridge. <\/p>\n