Retirement of judges exposes Malta’s reform delays

Two senior members of Malta’s judiciary—Justice Toni Abela and Justice Anna Felice—are stepping down from the bench this week, coinciding with an unexecuted judicial reform that had aimed to raise the retirement age for members of the judiciary. Their retirement underscores not only the personal culmination of long careers but also exposes significant fractures in the government’s approach to constitutional reform, particularly concerning judicial independence and parliamentary consensus.

Background: A controversial path to the Bench

Justice Toni Abela, a former deputy leader of the Labour Party and once closely affiliated with former prime minister Joseph Muscat, was appointed to the bench in 2016. His appointment followed his unsuccessful candidacy for the European Court of Auditors (ECA), an episode that drew significant public attention and political scrutiny. This appointment was one of several political nominations that critics argued reflected the administration’s broader strategy of installing loyalists in sensitive state institutions.

Despite early skepticism from the legal community and segments of the public, Justice Abela is now widely acknowledged—by peers and independent observers alike—to have maintained judicial independence during his tenure. His performance, along with that of fellow former Labour Party member and current Judge Wenzu Mintoff, has been characterized by restraint from overt partisanship, with both men generally adjudging cases with impartiality and legal rigour.

Justice Anna Felice, originally appointed to the bench in 2006 under a Nationalist Party-led government, is now concluding her judicial career after serving for close to twenty years. Over the course of her judicial career, Felice developed a reputation for detailed reasoning in civil and constitutional matters. She is often noted for her cautious, textually grounded interpretations of Maltese law.

Both judges are retiring upon reaching the constitutionally mandated retirement age of 68, a limit that the government attempted—and failed—to extend through constitutional amendments earlier this year.

Failed reform: Raising the retirement age

In May, details emerged that the government had prepared legislative amendments that would raise the mandatory retirement age of judges and magistrates from 68 to 70. This proposed change, part of a broader constitutional reform bill, was introduced as a means to address pending vacancies in the judiciary and to retain experienced legal minds.

However, legal experts and opposition leaders quickly criticized the manner in which the proposal was introduced. The government had chosen to bundle the increase in judicial retirement age with other more contentious reforms, including the creation of a Judiciary Standards Commissioner, a new institutional post aimed at overseeing judicial conduct. Critics argued that this bundling tactic served to bypass genuine dialogue and that constitutional changes of such magnitude required consensus, especially within a system grounded in democratic legitimacy and the separation of powers.

The Opposition, led by the Nationalist Party, expressed willingness to discuss reform but insisted on a wider consultation involving legal practitioners, the judiciary itself, and civil society. It advocated for a broader reform approach that went beyond merely adjusting retirement age, aiming instead to tackle structural inefficiencies, reduce case delays, and strengthen public trust in the neutrality of the judiciary.

Prime Minister Robert Abela, however, declined to accommodate these calls for dialogue. He directed the Minister for Justice, Jonathan Attard, to proceed with tabling the amendment bill without broader consensus. The strategy ultimately backfired. Without the necessary parliamentary majority, the reforms stalled, and the proposed changes failed to materialize.

Judicial exits and the looming backlog

As a result of this failed legislative initiative, the judicial retirement age remains unchanged. Consequently, Malta will see a succession of judicial retirements over the next few months, compounding existing concerns about delays and resource constraints within the courts.

Following the departures of Justice Abela and Justice Felice this week, the judiciary will see Judge Grazio Mercieca retire in November. In February 2026, both Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo are also scheduled to retire, bringing the total number of judicial exits to five within a span of 20 months.

This wave of retirements is expected to slow court proceedings further unless new appointments are made expeditiously. Given that judicial appointments in Malta must be made through the Judicial Appointments Committee and confirmed by the President of the Republic, any delays in political decision-making could directly impact the efficiency of the justice system.

The European context: Judicial retirement and remuneration

Across the European Union, judicial retirement ages differ widely, although the average stands at around 67. Some jurisdictions allow judges to continue serving beyond that age under special provisions or on a part-time basis. Malta’s age threshold, which aligns with the lower end of this spectrum, has come under scrutiny for prematurely ending the careers of experienced judges who may still be willing and able to serve.

Judges and magistrates in Malta receive substantial remuneration relative to public sector benchmarks. Currently, judges receive an annual remuneration of €110,000, whereas magistrates are compensated with a yearly salary of €100,000. Moreover, members of the judiciary are entitled to a second, uncapped pension upon retirement, calculated based on the current salary of active judges or magistrates, in addition to their statutory national insurance pension.

This generous retirement framework has long been justified on grounds of attracting qualified legal talent and maintaining judicial independence by minimizing financial vulnerabilities. Nonetheless, the government’s reluctance to separate retirement age reform from broader political debates has arguably undermined its ability to retain experienced personnel.

Political fallout and institutional implications

The failure of the proposed constitutional amendments has exacerbated tensions between the ruling Labour Party and the Opposition. While both sides publicly profess a commitment to judicial independence and reform, they have diverged starkly on the path to achieving these goals.

Prime Minister Robert Abela’s insistence on unilateral legislative action, even in matters traditionally requiring bipartisan consensus, has drawn criticism from constitutional scholars. Many argue that reforms affecting the judiciary must be handled with greater transparency and mutual respect, as their long-term impact on legal norms and institutional integrity is significant.

The government’s approach has also raised broader concerns about its strategy in handling constitutional changes. Attempts to force through reform without consultation risk undermining public trust in both the government and the judiciary—a crucial issue in a country still emerging from years of institutional controversies and reputational damage, including high-profile political resignations and inquiries into rule of law standards.

Looking ahead: Judicial reform still on the agenda

Despite recent setbacks, calls for judicial reform in Malta are unlikely to subside. Stakeholders within the legal community continue to advocate for structural changes, including expanded court resources, the digitization of court proceedings, clearer disciplinary mechanisms for judicial conduct, and improved transparency in case assignment.

The Opposition has signaled that it remains open to negotiations on these matters, provided that any reform is comprehensive, inclusive, and handled through legitimate democratic channels. However, with upcoming judicial retirements and limited political timeframes, the window for meaningful change may soon narrow.

As the legal community prepares for the departure of two respected judges, the debate over judicial reform is far from resolved. What remains clear is that ad hoc proposals and unilateral decision-making are unlikely to yield the stability and public confidence that Malta’s justice system requires.

Conclusion

The retirement of Justices Toni Abela and Anna Felice marks a significant moment for Malta’s judiciary, not merely for the loss of two experienced legal minds, but as a reflection of deeper systemic challenges. Their departures, against the backdrop of a failed attempt at judicial reform, underscore the pressing need for a more thoughtful, collaborative, and depoliticized approach to institutional change. While both judges leave behind records largely respected by their peers, their exits highlight vulnerabilities within Malta’s legal framework—particularly in succession planning, judicial resource allocation, and the mechanics of constitutional amendment.

The government’s decision to bundle critical reforms without cross-party consensus ultimately hindered progress and left the judiciary facing a potential shortfall in capacity at a time when public trust in institutions remains fragile. Moving forward, any genuine effort to strengthen the rule of law in Malta must prioritize inclusive dialogue, transparency, and respect for constitutional procedures. The path to reform may be complex, but its pursuit is vital for preserving judicial independence and ensuring the long-term credibility of the justice system.

FAQs

Why are Judges Toni Abela and Anna Felice retiring?
They are retiring because they have reached the mandatory judicial retirement age of 68 as stipulated by Maltese law.

Was there an attempt to change the judicial retirement age?
Yes, the government proposed raising the retirement age to 70, but the measure failed due to lack of political consensus.

Why did the judicial reform fail?
The government did not secure Opposition support and included the retirement age change within a broader constitutional reform bill, which was heavily criticized.

How many judges are expected to retire in the near future?
In addition to Abela and Felice, three more judges will retire by early 2026, making a total of five departures.

What are the implications of these retirements for the judiciary?
There is concern that judicial proceedings may slow down further due to reduced manpower and potential delays in appointing replacements.

How much do Maltese judges earn?
Judges earn approximately €110,000 annually, while magistrates earn €100,000. They also receive a second, uncapped pension upon retirement.

What was controversial about Toni Abela’s appointment?
His close ties to former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and political background raised concerns about judicial independence at the time of his appointment.

Did Abela and Felice face criticism during their tenure?
Initially, Abela faced skepticism, but both judges later earned respect for demonstrating impartiality and adherence to legal principles.

Why did the Opposition reject the government's reform proposal?
The Opposition sought a more holistic judicial reform and objected to the government's attempt to bypass consensus on constitutional changes.

Is judicial reform still on the table in Malta?
Yes, although stalled, judicial reform remains a pressing issue, and stakeholders continue to advocate for broader institutional changes.