A sworn letter by Judge Lawrence “Wenzu” Mintoff has triggered a major political and institutional storm in Malta, raising questions about the judiciary, the Prime Minister, and how the next Chief Justice will be chosen.Here’s a clear breakdown of what happened, what each side is saying, and why it matters.1. The letter that started it allThe letter, dated 20th February, was sent to the Cabinet Secretary and copied to top state officials, including the President and Prime Minister. In it, Mintoff recounts a private meeting he says took place with Prime Minister Robert Abela on 11th February, where the two discussed the ongoing search for a new Chief Justice. He also refers to follow-up messages exchanged later that same evening.2. What Mintoff claims happened in the meetingAccording to the judge, the conversation included political considerations around the appointment. Mintoff claims Abela spoke about how selecting certain candidates could shift political dynamics and suggested that choosing a name perceived as backed by the Opposition could weaken him politically.The judge further alleges that the Prime Minister indicated a preference to delay the appointment until after the next general election. Mintoff says he strongly rejected that idea, insisting that such an important role should be decided purely on merit and in the country’s best interest rather than partisan calculations.3. The WhatsApp exchangeMintoff also describes a WhatsApp exchange that allegedly took place later that day. In that conversation, he claims the Prime Minister told him he was not his preferred choice because of his age and the limited time he would have left before retirement.The judge pushed back on that reasoning, pointing out that previous Chief Justices had served with similar timelines and arguing that age alone could not justify excluding him.4. The Key Allegations Behind The Conflict ClaimThe most serious parts of the letter relate to two earlier episodes that Mintoff believes explain why the Prime Minister may hold a personal bias against him.The first concerns the aftermath of the 2015 Paqpaqli crash cases. At the time, Robert Abela was working as a lawyer involved in the proceedings. Mintoff alleges that after the cases were concluded, Abela pressured court staff over how legal costs were calculated, claiming the difference could amount to thousands of euros. The judge says this pressure was directed at court employees and that Abela even implied judicial involvement in administrative decisions. Mintoff adds that he later raised the issue directly with Abela after he became Prime Minister.The second episode involves a dispute over a publication linked to the Labour Party which Mintoff says contained offensive claims about a deceased member of his family (his uncle former PM Dom Mintoff). He says he asked for the publication to be withdrawn and requested an apology, but claims the issue was never properly addressed.5. The Prime Minister’s ResponsePrime Minister Robert Abela has denied interfering with the judiciary. Responding after the letter became public, he said the Paqpaqli dispute centred on a disagreement over legal fees handled by court administration rather than judicial decisions.He also said he has no regrets about his actions and would be willing to explain the matter to the appropriate authorities if necessary.Abela rejected calls to recuse himself from discussions on the next Chief Justice, arguing that he cannot abandon his constitutional responsibilities. At the same time, he said he still has confidence in Judge Mintoff’s integrity and insisted that the appointment process remains ongoing.6. Political ReactionsThe letter quickly triggered strong political reactions across the spectrum. Opposition leader Alex Borg described the situation as “unprecedented” and said the public is waiting for answers, while the Nationalist Party argued the claims raise serious concerns about judicial independence.Smaller parties including ADPD and Momentum went further, calling on the Prime Minister to resign. The Labour Party, meanwhile, accused the Opposition of politicising the situation.Civil society organisations also reacted. Repubblika said the episode highlights the need for reform in how Chief Justices are appointed, suggesting the process should be removed from political control.ADPD also filed a Freedom of Information request seeking details of communications between the government and members of the judiciary.7. Why Timing MattersThe controversy comes at a particularly sensitive time, as Malta is still trying to appoint a new Chief Justice after a recent nominee failed to secure the required two-thirds parliamentary majority.With the role still unresolved, tensions surrounding the process were already high before this latest development.Bonus: What Happens Next?For now, several key questions remain open. The Prime Minister has denied wrongdoing and will not step aside, while the Opposition and other groups are demanding further answers.At the same time, the process to appoint the next Chief Justice remains unresolved, leaving both the political and institutional implications still unfolding.What happens next could shape not only the political fallout from this episode, but also the wider debate around judicial independence and institutional trust in Malta.•