Prime Minister Meloni Defends Judicial Reform and Upcoming Referendum to Separate Careers

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni defended the government's judicial reform and the upcoming referendum, asserting that the changes are designed to protect citizens' rights rather than target members of the judiciary. Speaking at the Atreju event, Meloni stated that the proposed separation of careers for magistrates is a measure that has been under discussion for three decades. She emphasized that the executive is not attempting to remove anyone from office but is focused on guaranteeing legal protections for the public. The Prime Minister also noted that previous efforts to overhaul the justice system frequently failed due to opposition from the National Association of Magistrates (ANM). The debate over the separation of careers for judges and prosecutors in Italy dates back to the early 1990s following the Mani Pulite corruption investigations. Proponents argue it ensures a truly neutral judge, while opponents fear it could weaken the independence of prosecutors or place them under executive control. Various governments have attempted similar reforms over the last 30 years without achieving a final legislative or referendum-based resolution.

Supporters of the "Yes" vote in the referendum argue that the reform is essential to decouple the judiciary from political influence. Lucia Albano, Undersecretary at the Ministry of Economy and Finance, stated that the reform would finally free magistrates from politics and enhance the overall independence of the legal system. This sentiment was echoed by Deputy Justice Minister Francesco Paolo Sisto, who described participating in the vote as a civic duty and a fundamental move toward national progress. Additionally, Paolo Capone, General Secretary of the UGL labor union, characterized the "Yes" vote as a choice of responsibility. Capone argued that the changes would lead to a more balanced and credible justice system for all Italian citizens. 30 (years) — duration of the political debate over judicial career separation

Opponents of the reform have voiced concerns regarding the potential disruption of the institutional balance between the different branches of government. Angelo Chiorazzo publicly supported the "No" campaign, arguing that the current structure must be preserved to defend the stability of Italian institutions. Former magistrate and politician Antonio Di Pietro also criticized the existing system while discussing the reform, using a sports-themed metaphor to describe the relationship between judges and prosecutors. Di Pietro suggested that the current lack of separation creates a perception of bias that undermines the fairness of trials. „No one wants a match with the referee and player as relatives” — Antonio Di Pietro via ANSA

The debate has also extended into the media sphere, involving prominent journalists and specific cases of high-profile prosecutors. Marco Travaglio, the editor of Il Fatto Quotidiano, intervened in the discussion to defend prosecutor Nicola Gratteri against political allegations. Travaglio asserted that Gratteri has never been associated with any judicial faction, or "corrente," which he claimed debunked various political narratives surrounding the reform. The editor's comments highlight the ongoing tension between the press and political figures over the perceived impartiality of individual magistrates and the influence of internal judicial groups. „Gratteri non è mai stato in nessuna corrente e fa saltare tutte le vostre menzogne” (Gratteri has never been in any faction and he blows up all your lies) — Marco Travaglio via Il Fatto Quotidiano Judicial Reform Referendum Positions: Primary Goal (before: Unified career path for judges and prosecutors, after: Strict separation of career paths for judges and prosecutors); Magistrate Mobility (before: Magistrates can switch between judging and prosecuting roles, after: Magistrates must choose one path at the start of their career); Institutional Focus (before: Emphasis on the unity of the judiciary, after: Emphasis on the impartiality of the judge)