Ombudsman, 'Campaign to undermine trust in my office'

The institutional conflict between the government and the ombudsman on an investigation into army promotions “should have never started in the first place and certainly not in the way it started,” Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino said in the annual report presented in parliament.

The ombudsman was referring to the government’s attempt to block an investigation of his office into complaints on promotions lodged by army officials.

Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia claims that the ombudsman does not enjoy jurisdiction over the army.

In the same report the ombudsman has also condemned a “campaign of unfair criticism” and allegations of “political bias” in an unspecified section of the media.

While saying that he welcomes criticism related to his administration of the office he objected to any insinuation of political bias which only serves to undermine the public’s trust in the institution which guarantees the people’s right to “good governance”.

“The allegations made are condemnable and whoever permitted them should be held responsible for his actions,” Said Pullicino wrote.

In his report the ombudsman insists that the procedure regulating the way complaints in the army should be investigated by the ombudsman was already agreed upon with the previous PN government following “high-level” negotiations. 

According to Said Pullicino the agreement was already being implemented after the ombudsman had issued his recommendations on an investigation on complaints made by army officers.

“These recommendations had already been implemented both by the previous government and in two cases on the watch of the present one”.

Said Pullicino concedes that the present administration has every right to disagree with the agreement reached with the previous one. It could also amend legislation applying to these complaints.

“But until these regulations and laws are not changed, the army is bound to observe them. On the other hand if the law is changed the ombudsman will be obliged to abide by the new law.”

But Said Pullicino makes it clear that he would never accept as fair any amendments or interpretations which deny officials the right to seek redress from the ombudsman which is given to them by present laws.

He also contends that before any decision was taken to backtrack from the agreement reached with the previous government, the office of the ombudsman should have been informed and consulted.

“This should not have been done as an act of courtesy but as a sign of respect towards the principles of good public administration.”

Presently, according to Said Pullicino, the standoff between his office and the government can only be resolved through a decision by the law courts on whether the ombudsman has jurisdiction over the army.

But the ombudsman expressed concern that court procedures can take long and thus delay any redress for the officials making the complaint.

As an alternative the ombudsman is proposing that such conflicts are referred to parliament in a way that the correct interpretation of the law is discussed to avoid recourse to the courts.

Mechanism to inform opposition ‘in confidence’ proposed

In his annual report the Ombudsman is proposing a mechanism through which sensitive information which cannot be divulged to the public is provided “in confidence but tempestively” and “by right” to the President and the leader of the opposition.

This would apply to matters related to national security, international relations and fiscal policy, which may not be in the national interest to divulge to the general public immediately.

The ombudsman is calling for a code of conduct and a protocol, which would bind the government when faced with similar requests for information, which cannot be immediately divulged, to the public.

Persons of trust

The ombudsman expressed concern that in the past years under both PN and PL administrations, the demarcation line between engagement in the public service and engagement in ministry secretariats “has become increasingly blurred.”

While recognizing the right of governments to appoint persons of trust to ensure the implementation of the electoral manifesto, the ombudsman notes that traditionally this role was restricted to persons directly appointed by ministers who are engaged by a contract to form part of a ministry secretariat or to directly assist the minister in his duties.

He notes that different governments have been directly appointing persons in administrative roles in various departments to ensure that government policies are implemented.

Whenever such appointments become the rule and not the exception, these lead to a “lack of transparency and a lack of accountability.”

This is because these appointments are being made in the absence of calls for applications and according to undefined conditions of service.

According to the ombudsman Malta is moving from the British tradition, where the civil service is autonomous, to a US style system where with every change of government all civil service officials offer their resignation when a new administration comes into office.

The ombudsman does not express any opinion on which system is best but insists that irrespective of which system of appointments is adopted, engagement in both the civil service and in other public authorities should be transparent and subject to clear rules which ensure accountability,

The ombudsman reiterated the concern he had expressed under a PN administration on the widening of the definition of  ‘position of trust’ as this could lead to allegations of “abuse and discrimination”. He called for a debate in parliament to ensure a better definition.