Blue versus red togas? Not exactly, but…

Journalists and politicians all have their own views as to why certain judges and magistrates do what they do: the law courts have long been divided between "Nationalist" and "Labourite" members of the bench - even though this does not mean that they do not decide according to what the law says.

But there is no denying that politics is the key determinant in the game being played out by both Labour and the PN as to how to bring about Judge Lino Farrugia Sacco's ousting from the bench. The PN say any delay on Labour's part in bringing about the judge's inevitable fate, would be a sign that the government is not keen in upholding the integrity of the judiciary. Labour accused the PN of using the impeachment as a political tool after the fall of the Gonzi administration in December 2012, five years after a first decision by the Commission for the Administration of Justice.

Chief justice and judge

The latest game-changer was the Commission for the Administration of Justice's refusal to entertain a second motion of impeachment filed by Joseph Muscat, and to carry out a second investigation.

With six months left to his retirement, it was believed that a new round of hearings would not be over until Farrugia Sacco's hangs up his robe.

But by reconfirming the original decision - which found that Farrugia Sacco had "misbehaved" by retaining his post of president of the Malta Olympic Committee in breach of the judiciary's code of ethics - the CAJ showed itself unwilling to entertain any more delays.

Behind this unexpected decision, is the feud between Farrugia Sacco and chief justice Silvio Camilleri, who presides the CAJ since the President of the Republic George Abela has had to recuse himself (Abela had represented the judge during hearings in 2007 over his insistence to occupy the MOC role).

Farrugia Sacco last week complained to the Speaker of the House that he is being denied a fair hearing. The CAJ on the other hand, is unwilling to give the judge any elbow room to scupper the impeachment.

Farrugia Sacco has always been a personae non gratae to the Nationalist establishment. A new code of ethics in 2004 demanded that judges step down from positions as such as Farrugia Sacco's, who was president of the Malta Olympic Committee.

In February 2006 he was informed in writing that his MOC presidency was incompatible with his role as judge, and asked to resign. In 2007, he was formally told by the CAJ that his conflict was in breach of the judiciary's code of ethics. Farrugia Sacco was subsequently omitted from the Republic Day celebrations of 2007 in a clear attempt on the part of the administration to force him to resign the MOC post. The then-education and sports minister Louis Galea also boycotted the MOC's sports awards in 2007 - when the MOC criticised sports laws which they claimed threatened its autonomy, Galea responded by pointing out Farrugia Sacco's conflict of interest, as a judge "wearing the cap of MOC president [taking] a position against an act of parliament in public circumstances outside the judicial process."

The final straw came in June 2012 when Sunday Times of London reporters secretly filmed a meeting with Farrugia Sacco in an attempting at buying the MOC's allocation Sochi winter games' tickets, so that they could resell them elsewhere. Although in a subsequent investigation by the International Olympic Commission's ethics commission did not issue any sanctions or reprimand against the judge, it said Farrugia Sacco had "allowed the journalists to prove their point" in a discussion on the authorised ticket reselling for the Sochi games.

In the meantime, the justice minister at the time asked the Commission for the Administration of Justice to investigate the case.

But it was only five days after Lawrence Gonzi's government fell, that the embattled prime minister decided on 15 December 2012 to file an impeachment motion.

Speedy commission hearings

Unofficially, the country was in election mode; Farrugia Sacco's son David was a candidate for Labour. The CAJ's first hearings took place at breakneck speed, meeting six times between January and March 2013 and steaming ahead despite the judge's attempt in the Constitutional Court to recuse two members of the CAJ he believed were politically biased (retired judge Victor Caruana Colombo, for being appointed by Lawrence Gonzi; and Chamber of Advocates president Reuben Balzan, a campaigner for Simon Busuttil's bid to become PN deputy leader).

This was at a time when Gonzi vowing to reconvene the parliament - in the middle of an election - if the House had to impeach the judge on recommendation from the CAJ.

But after Labour's election on 10 March, it only met six times throughout the rest of 2013. On 9 May 2013, Farrugia Sacco asked the CAJ to refer Gonzi's impeachment motion to the Speaker of the House, to see whether the motion was still valid given that he was no longer an MP in the new legislature.

On 17 June 2013, parliamentary secretary for justice Owen Bonnici offered to the CAJ he have the Speaker decide whether the motion was still valid; but the CAJ decided it would not stop hearing the case unless the Speaker revokes its mandate.

Seven more months passed before the CAJ presented its recommendation to the Speaker on 3 February 2014 to have Farrugia Sacco impeached. Again the judge asked the Speaker to consider that the impeachment motion was now invalid, since parliamentary motions cannot be carried over to a new legislature. Gonzi himself, the proponent, was no longer MP.

When the Speaker finally spiked the "dead" motion, Joseph Muscat filed a second impeachment motion. Now the CAJ would have to restart its deliberations. The judge would have hoped that the hearings would be far from over when he retires in August.

Silvio Camilleri has refused to take the CAJ into a second round of hearings, telling the Speaker - in a letter signed, this time, by President George Abela - that the original decision was "definite".

Farrugia Sacco wrote to the Speaker last week, complaining that no meeting was held by the CAJ to give him the opportunity to make his own representation on the new impeachment motion. He insists that the CAJ's first decision is dead, much as the original impeachment motion was, and so it cannot be "reconfirmed".

Now Labour has turned down a request by the Opposition made last week for an urgent meeting of the House Business Committee to have MPs set a date for the impeachment hearing in the House.

Labour MPs will meet tomorrow Monday to take a final decision. "The matter has been pending since 2007. It took the Nationalist governments five years to act. When it finally took action, it did so at the end of its legislature before parliament dissolved ahead of the general elections," the government said in a statement.

The PN, on its part, says the Farrugia Sacco case has negatively affected the public's trust in the judiciary. "Parliament must immediately discuss the matter, pronounce itself on the matter and take a final decision," the PN said, calling on Muscat not to hinder the impeachment process.