Justice Official Won't Resign Over 'Firing Squad' Attack on Italian Judges

Italy's Justice Ministry faces an internal crisis as its chief of staff weathers a political firestorm over inflammatory remarks about the judiciary, with the government choosing containment over accountability just days before a critical referendum that will reshape the nation's legal system.

Giusi Bartolozzi, the chief of staff to Justice Minister Carlo Nordio, will not issue a public apology nor resign after calling Italy's magistrates "firing squads" during a televised debate—a comment that has become the lightning rod in the already bitter fight over judicial reform. Minister Nordio confirmed this stance during a referendum campaign event in Turin, declaring that Bartolozzi "does not need to resign" and has simply clarified her position, which he insists was directed at a "small politicized minority" of judges, not the entire judiciary.

Why This Matters

• Judicial independence under scrutiny: The controversy arrives 12 days before Italians vote on constitutional changes that would separate prosecutorial and judicial careers—a reform the magistrates' association fiercely opposes.

• No public accountability: Despite initial signals suggesting an apology, government sources confirm the matter will be "handled internally," with no public contrition from Bartolozzi.

• Parliamentary standoff brewing: Opposition parties across the spectrum are demanding Nordio appear before the Chamber of Deputies to explain his staff's conduct and whether she can remain in her position.

• Prime Minister displeased: Giorgia Meloni is reportedly "strongly displeased" by the remarks, though no disciplinary action is forthcoming.

The Incendiary Remark and Its Timing

Bartolozzi's explosive comment—"Vote yes and we'll get rid of the magistracy, which are firing squads"—was broadcast on Telecolor, a Sicilian television network, as part of the government's push for a "yes" vote in the March 22-23 referendum. The plebiscite, which requires no minimum turnout, would enshrine the separation of prosecutorial and judicial roles into Italy's constitution, create dual Superior Councils of the Magistracy (the self-governing bodies that manage judicial careers and discipline), establish a new disciplinary court, and introduce a lottery system for selecting CSM members.

The timing arrives at a sensitive moment for the ruling coalition. With the referendum entering its final stretch, Bartolozzi's language has provided ammunition to opponents who argue the reform is designed to weaken judicial independence and increase political control over prosecutors and judges. Opposition politicians and legal experts have argued that her choice of words—evoking summary execution—carries particular weight in Italy's context.

Bartolozzi is herself a sitting magistrate on leave, having served as a judge in Gela, Palermo, and Rome's appellate court before entering politics as a Forza Italia deputy from 2018 to 2022. She was appointed Nordio's vice chief of staff in October 2022 and promoted to chief of staff in March 2024.

Government's Calculated Defense

Minister Nordio's defense of Bartolozzi has evolved from tentative distancing to full-throated support. Initially, he expressed regret for the phrasing and predicted she would apologize for words that "do not reflect her thinking." By Monday evening in Turin, that expectation had evaporated. Nordio now insists the statement was "misinterpreted" and aimed only at judges who have become political actors, not the institution as a whole.

Undersecretary to the Prime Minister's Office, Alfredo Mantovano, echoed this reasoning during an appearance on Rai Radio1's Ping Pong program, calling the phrase "unfortunate" but pivoting immediately to the substance of the reform itself. The government message is clear: move past the scandal and focus on the vote.

Behind closed doors, however, frustration is evident. Multiple government sources told reporters that Bartolozzi "needs to rein in her tongue," and Prime Minister Meloni—who has staked significant political capital on the referendum—was reportedly displeased at the distraction. Yet no resignations or public sanctions are under consideration. The government maintains its support for Bartolozzi despite the controversy.

Magistrates Hold Their Fire—Barely

The National Association of Magistrates (ANM), Italy's main judicial union, has adopted a posture of restrained outrage. In a statement from its executive committee, the ANM noted it has chosen "not to respond to repeated attacks" from high-profile political figures in recent weeks, heeding President Sergio Mattarella's call for lowered institutional tensions. Yet the group acknowledged that rhetoric against Italy's judiciary has reached an "unacceptable level for those who hope for respectful collaboration between institutions."

The ANM's decision not to escalate is strategic. The association has been criticized by the government for its opposition to the referendum, with Bartolozzi herself sending a formal letter in February demanding the names of financial backers behind the "Giusto dire NO" (Right to Say No) campaign. The ANM dismissed the request as a privacy violation and an attempt at intimidation.

The restraint may also reflect awareness that a public battle could backfire in the referendum campaign, framing judges as a self-interested lobby rather than defenders of constitutional balance.

Opposition Demands Parliamentary Accounting

The center-left and centrist opposition wasted no time calling for accountability. At the opening of Monday's Chamber of Deputies session, representatives from the Five Star Movement (M5S), Green and Left Alliance (Avs), Democratic Party (Pd), and Italia Viva (Iv) demanded Nordio appear before parliament to explain what measures, if any, he plans to take.

Valentina D'Orso of M5S called Bartolozzi's words "subversive" and insisted they "cannot be downplayed." Angelo Bonelli of Avs drew a stark analogy: "It's as if the chief of staff to the Interior Minister said we need to get rid of the police." Bonelli added that Nordio's continued support for Bartolozzi raises questions about government intentions. Federico Gianassi of the Pd asked how the government could "shrug and look the other way," insisting Bartolozzi "cannot remain one second longer in that role." Roberto Giachetti of Italia Viva, who co-signed the request for a ministerial briefing, questioned the consistency of a magistrate calling for elimination of the judiciary.

What This Means for the Referendum and Italian Justice

With 12 days until Italians cast their ballots, the Bartolozzi affair has become a focal point in the debate over the reform's true aims. For voters weighing whether to approve the constitutional changes, the controversy illustrates core concerns critics have raised: that the government may seek to subordinate judicial power to political control.

For residents and those involved in legal proceedings, the referendum's outcome could have tangible consequences. If the reform passes, the separation of prosecutorial and judicial careers would alter how investigations are conducted and cases are tried. The dual Superior Councils system would change how judicial discipline is administered and how judges are selected. These structural changes could affect the pace of trials, corruption investigations, and criminal proceedings that residents may encounter directly or through the courts' handling of pending cases.

Proponents argue the reform will restore impartiality to trials by ensuring judges are not institutionally aligned with prosecutors, potentially speeding up proceedings. Critics contend that the real goal is to limit the independence of investigative magistrates, potentially affecting how thoroughly corruption and organized crime cases are pursued.

The absence of a minimum turnout threshold means the referendum will be decided by those who show up. Whether Bartolozzi's rhetoric energizes "no" voters or reinforces the government base may determine the outcome—and with it, the future structure of Italy's judiciary for a generation.