Magistrate Lia has no decent option left but to resign.  The Constitutional Court, in its sentence issued this week, gave Magistrate Lia an almighty drubbing.

The court ordered the magistrate removed from the case instituted by Repubblika against the police commissioner. The court chastised, berated and lambasted Lia for her catalogue of errors, her poor judgement and her inconsistency.

Magistrate Lia previously recused herself from four separate cases that were very similar to the case Repubblika filed. The organisation is challenging the police commissioner for having failed to prosecute Pilatus Bank Directors and officials for money laundering, fraud, criminal association, and other crimes as ordered by a magisterial inquiry concluded in 2021.

Magistrate Lia pigheadedly refused to recuse herself.  Repubblika made three separate requests for her to step down and allow another magistrate to hear the case.

The Constitutional Court wasn’t impressed, saying in its ruling: “This inconsistency raises serious concerns that they (Repubblika) will not get justice and that their case will not be transparent and conducted in a way that not only ensures justice is done but also that it is seen to be done.”

“The magistrate previously recused herself or abstained for the same reasons for which she is now being asked to recuse herself, but in this case, she refused…The court considers that the fear created by her attitude is real and well-founded.”

There was far worse.  In its judgement, the Constitutional Court said Magistrate Lia’s decree was not consistent with sworn statements and the reports of proceedings in the media.

The Constitutional Court, “the highest court of the land”, openly accused the magistrate of misrepresenting the facts, that her decree was not faithful to reality, that she had not been honest.

“It results from the acts that sworn declarations and reports in the media are not consistent with her decree.” That is a damning accusation from the Constitutional Court.

It refers to a decree by Magistrate Lia on 6 September in which she referred to an incident in which her father-in-law, lawyer Pawlu Lia, approached Repubblika president Robert Aquilina on the organisation’s request for the magistrate’s recusal, seen as an attempt to intimidate him.

In her decree, Magistrate Lia said this was “a spontaneous incident”. This was a cardinal mistake that was not missed by the Constitutional Court.

“The fact that the Magistrate expressed herself about a fact that was not documented in the acts and was not submitted by any party, certainly creates serious doubts about proceedings,” the court said, adding, “The Court understands that the plaintiff (Repubblika) succeeded in proving reasonable fear that the case continues to be heard by the presiding magistrate (Lia)”.

Magistrate Lia hadn’t witnessed the incident.  She hadn’t heard evidence from any party about what had happened. The only person who could have convinced her that this was “a spontaneous incident” was her father-in-law Pawlu Lia.

Magistrate Lia had stupidly revealed her bias by reaching conclusions about an incident about which she had not heard evidence in court. No wonder the Constitutional Court came down on her like a tonne of bricks.

“The magistrate was expected to recuse herself at the first request in order to maintain consistency with her previous decisions.  It would at least have been more appropriate for the magistrate to accede to the request at the second or third plea,” the Constitutional Court ruled.

“To reach this decision, the court is not relying on hypothetical situations or suppositions, but on facts and evidence that are uncontested and documented.”

That was a direct rebuke to Lia’s cynical accusations that Robert Aquilina’s claims were simply “gossip and gratuitous assertions”.  She sowed doubts about the authenticity of the document produced by Aquilina, which showed that a magisterial inquiry had ordered the prosecution of Pilatus’ directors and officials.

“With this decision.. the Court is protecting justice and its administration.” In its ruling, the Constitutional Court accused Magistrate Lia of undermining public trust in the judicial system.

When the Court has to intervene to protect justice from one of its own magistrates who it accuses of inconsistency, untruthfulness and manifest prejudice, that magistrate should be removed.

If Magistrate Lia failed so abysmally to uphold the most basic impartiality, fairness and justice, who can trust her? How can Magistrate Lia be allowed to continue to pass judgements when the Constitutional Court ruled so categorically that she jeopardised justice and the public trust in the courts?

It’s not just Magistrate Lia who should pack up.  Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg should join her.

The AG was on Magistrate Lia’s side, defending her decision not to recuse herself and viciously attacking Repubblika. The AG accused Repubblika of conducting an exercise in “forum shopping which should not be tolerated because it is an abuse of the judicial system”.

She blamed Repubblika for “unnecessarily escalating the issue into a personal attack against the magistrate”.

“This attitude should not be tolerated as it effectively constitutes a frenzied attack on the judiciary,” the AG added. She even requested that Repubblika bear all the court expenses.

Buttigieg has a natural talent for being on the wrong side every single time. Magistrate Lia can only rely on Buttigieg to defend her – because nobody else will.

Even the Constitutional Court has hung her out to dry, outraged at her abysmal judgement and stubbornness. Lia has not only been humiliated by being publicly forced to make way, but she has also been exposed as entirely unfit to sit in judgement of others.

In any normal country, she would be kicked out after facing the Commission for the Administration of Justice. The bitter irony is that her own father-in-law sits on that commission.