‘Cronyism, clientelism and patronage’: Ombudsman’s missive on ministers’ customer care offices

The Ombudsman Anthony C. Mifsud has warned that government ministries’ ‘customer care’ offices and grievances units could be used as a vehicle for political patronage, if not managed by “well-intentioned persons”.

In one of his hard-hitting introductions to the annual case-notes for his office, the former auditor-general said such ministerial outreach offices could serve as useful offices to handle complaints.

But when staffed by non-independent personnel, the office could easily be used for partisan purposes.

“When correctly managed by well-intentioned persons seeking redress for administrative mistakes within the limits of applicable guidelines, customer care and grievances units are a useful tool to rectify injustice for the individual and for the common good.

“When however, they are not so managed, because they are not independent and autonomous bodies they can easily develop into mechanisms which generate cronyism, clientelism and political patronage that are the antithesis of good public administration,” Mifsud said.

Mifsud was referring, without mentioning the incident, to Principal Permanent Secretary Mario Cutajar’s comments earlier in January in a civil service report, where he implied that the Ombudsman did not follow transparent practices of good governance and that it failed to cooperate with the public administration.

Cutajar also claimed that the office employed persons of trust when it was not entitled to and did not base investigations and recommendations on facts.

In his case-notes commentary, Mifsud said critics who think the Office of the Ombudsman was there to assume the role of a customer care facility, were ignoring its true function as a scrutineer of public administration.

“Unlike customer care services and grievances units set up to consider complaints within the public administration, the Office of the Ombudsman does not have the function to implement and promote government programmes and policies. It is not an institution in the service of government. It is at the service of citizens and the House of Representatives.”

Mifsud said it was a fallacy to think the Ombudsman institution has throughout the years in its internal management procedures failed to behave in the same way that it obliges other authorities to do or that it did not embrace the principles of good governance and practice by operating according to the same standards it set for others.

“Experience has shown that there is a need to educate people, including persons in authority, on the real values that the Ombudsman institution stands for as an independent and autonomous authority in the service of Parliament. Rather than promoting any attempt at redefining the institution, society should ensure that while recognising the need to improve procedures where needed, the Ombudsman institution is not in any way weakened.

“It should be strengthened not only through legislative provisions that further secure its autonomy and independence but also and perhaps more importantly, by a change in mentality that it is not an extension of the public administration but a valid instrument at the disposal of Parliament to hold the Executive accountable for its actions at all times.”