Rome, February 23, 2026 – A leading constitutional scholar warned today that a proposed overhaul of Italy’s justice system, spearheaded by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Justice Minister Carlo Nordio, risks undermining the independence of the judiciary and concentrating power within the executive branch. Professor Roberto Zaccaria, coordinator of the scientific council for the “No” committee – a group comprising 124 constitutional experts – voiced strong opposition to the reforms ahead of a scheduled referendum.
Zaccaria characterized the proposed changes as an attack on fundamental principles enshrined in the Italian Constitution. “This is a law, signed by Meloni and Nordio, that touches upon fundamental principles of our Constitution, aggresses and weakens the independence and autonomy of the judiciary, which is a founding value,” he stated. He expressed concern that the reforms could lead to a “delegitimization of the judiciary,” effectively diminishing its role as a check on power.
A central point of contention is the restructuring of the Council of the Judiciary (CSM), the body responsible for governing the Italian judicial system. According to Zaccaria, the proposed reforms would “destroy this organism, splinter it, divide it into two and three, and therefore weaken it, thus weakening the principle [of judicial independence].” He argued that the existing CSM structure, with a president appointed by the President of the Republic and a majority of judges, effectively safeguards the judiciary’s autonomy. The proposed changes would create a single High Disciplinary Court for magistrates, with a composition of 15 members – nine judges and six laypersons – appointed through a combination of selection and lottery, a system Zaccaria believes will compromise its independence.
The reforms have sparked a national debate, with proponents arguing that they are necessary to address inefficiencies and ensure accountability within the judiciary. However, Zaccaria dismissed claims that judges are not held accountable for misconduct, citing statistics from the CSM’s own Vice President Pinelli, which indicate that disciplinary proceedings are initiated in at least half of the cases examined. “substantially, judicial discipline is one of the aspects that works best,” he asserted. He maintained that instances of miscarriages of justice should be addressed through existing legal safeguards, rather than by eroding the principle of judicial independence.
Zaccaria also addressed arguments frequently made by supporters of the reforms, who often cite the views of legal scholar Giuliano Vassalli in favor of separating judicial careers. He countered that Vassalli’s support for an accusatorial system was qualified, noting that Vassalli himself expressed reservations about implementing a “Perry Mason”-style system in Italy. “Vassalli is cited inappropriately,” Zaccaria stated, referencing remarks made by Professor Enzo Cheli, a former colleague of Vassalli on the Constitutional Court.
Recent polling data suggests a growing momentum for the “No” campaign, though Zaccaria cautioned against placing undue reliance on surveys. He noted that public awareness of the reforms is increasing as the referendum approaches, and that historically, Italians have been reluctant to approve substantial constitutional changes. “Our Constitution has been modified about 25 times, and we recognize that, historically, when the proposed modification is substantial, with the exception of the reform of the Autonomies in 2001, the outcome of the referendum has always been negative,” he observed, pointing to previous referendums in 2006 and 2016 that failed to pass reforms related to the form of government.
Zaccaria framed the proposed judicial reforms as part of a broader governmental agenda that includes changes to regional autonomy and the introduction of a strengthened premiership. He warned that this “overall design of the government” aims to centralize power within the executive branch, raising concerns about the potential for authoritarian tendencies. “There is a strong risk of a concentration of powers, which has authoritarian characteristics because it undermines the characteristics of the rule of law, which is founded not on concentration but on the separation of powers: each power is independent and each power controls the other,” he concluded.