For over 30 years, there has been constant debate about the conflict between the judiciary and the political class, often framed—albeit inaccurately—as a clash between "justice advocates" and "legal safeguarders."
The fundamental principle is equality before the law. However, stating that everyone is equal before the law is a truism—akin to saying that the sun rises in the morning. What has been debated for three decades, in various places, is something else: do magistrates (sometimes, only sometimes) overstep into the political sphere or not? In other words, is justice applied equally to politicians, or are they prosecuted for crimes they clearly did not commit?
It seems that in Italy, every discussion on this topic has focused on minor aspects, legal technicalities that can be argued both ways—something that happens regularly. However, the real issue appears to be the relationship between the judiciary and politics, not only on a domestic level but also internationally. Can national or international magistrates influence politics? That seems to be the core question.
No one believes that a politician should replace a judge or vice versa, but distinguishing the political domain from the judicial one is not always easy. It is not true that the judiciary is against the right wing and that there is a "red conspiracy," as Berlusconi claimed. Only some magistrates extend their reach into politics for ideological reasons or personal interests, and this happens not only against right-wing politicians but also against those on the left.
It is worth noting that trials involving politicians fall into two very different categories: one involves common crimes (e.g., violence against a minor, accepting bribes), while the other concerns actions taken within the scope of political duties. For example, if Salvini received money to prevent migrants from disembarking, that would be different from doing so for political reasons (which can still be criticized).
Berlusconi, for instance, was tried for involving a minor in his so-called "elegant dinners." Meanwhile, the El-Masry case is entirely political, involving international relations, the safety of Italians in Libya, etc., and is certainly not about Meloni's personal friendship.
A key observation is that nearly all trials concerning acts committed in the exercise of political duties end in acquittal. This indicates a lack of legal grounds—something confirmed by the judges themselves, not just by critics of the judiciary.
In fact, these outcomes are predictable. Did anyone really believe, for example, that Salvini would end up in prison? The accusations of kidnapping against Salvini or complicity against Meloni regarding El-Masry appear to be clear exaggerations. There has never been a conviction in such cases.
One striking but little-known example is that of Campania’s governor, Bassolino: he was indicted 19 times and acquitted 19 times.
Personal offenses, such as fraud or violence, are a different matter, and in some cases, there have been convictions—though these remain rare. For example, out of around 80 trials against Berlusconi, only one, related to tax fraud, resulted in a conviction.
When an accused person is acquitted, it means that either the prosecutor or the judges made a mistake. The judiciary loses credibility when judges at different levels contradict each other. How can one determine who is right? This is especially problematic when the Court of Cassation dismisses a case outright, ruling that the trial should never have taken place in the first place.
The case of politicians is unique because their acquittals (which occur almost always) are not due to doubts about the facts but to the very nature of the alleged crime. The final verdict confirms what often seems evident.
If an acquittal follows, it demonstrates the baselessness of the accusations. Since it is unlikely that the prosecutors are simply incompetent, the logical conclusion is that they are interfering in politics. This seems to be the key point that resolves the entire controversy.
A judge’s duty is to determine whether someone has broken a law—not to pursue justice or moral good. For example, Salvini was accused of kidnapping. This crime typically involves acts such as ransom kidnappings, forcibly confining a person, or preventing a spouse from leaving out of jealousy. However, migrants on board were not physically detained—they could have gone to other nations or returned to their country of origin. This is why the judges had no choice but to acquit Salvini.
Whether his actions were unjust, inhumane, or morally wrong is not for judges to decide. Their job is to determine beyond reasonable doubt whether a law, as enacted by politicians, was violated—not to decide what is "just." Legally, "justice" means compliance with the law—even when the law is unjust or horrific, as in the case of Nazi antisemitism or Stalinist purges.
Justice, in a broader sense, is a philosophical belief, always subject to debate. Moreover, the law does not consider consequences; it simply applies statutes. Politics, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with consequences.
When a judge attempts to enforce an abstract concept of justice (rather than simply ensuring compliance with the law), they exceed their mandate, distorting the legal framework and encroaching on political territory.
It is evident that it is up to voters—not magistrates—to judge the political actions of a government.
Ultimately, everyone exploits judicial actions for propaganda purposes (even Meloni has done so in the past), which makes solving this issue even more difficult.