The Ombudsman is not the kind of person who goes public regularly, but when he does, he stirs a debate.
His office handles tens of complaints every day, with people who feel aggrieved by a decision or lack of it seeking his intervention to rectify what they believe is a shortcoming.
Local councils have taken over from the Malta Environment and Planning Authority in terms of complaints received. Last year, the Ombudsman received 84 complaints about local councils – which is an average of more than one per council – while grievances lodged against Mepa, which normally tops the list, numbered just 44.
The press conference Ombudsman Joe Sammut called last Wednesday concerned Naxxar local council. A person who was charged with failing to observe traffic regulations while driving in the area was, on the day and time in question, in Gozo. He was still asked to appear in front of the tribunal, although he had written to the Naxxar local council requesting it to waive the case against him.
He was charged with driving a red Mazda pick-up in breach of traffic regulations, but when he presented the logbook at the hearing, it resulted that his car was a grey Mazda 323 saloon. It was evident that a mistake had been committed and he was acquitted.
The man, who reserved his right to claim compensation, claimed Lm20 for expenses incurred and the inconvenience he suffered. When he received no reply he filed a case with the Ombudsman, who ruled that he was entitled to this compensation.
The council’s lawyers insisted that the man should file a civil case against the council but, for Lm20, it was not really worth the trouble.
In the words of the ombudsman, this incident “demonstrates that the outlook of public bodies on the award of redress in justified cases remains generally defensive and adversarial”.
This case cannot be an isolated one. Many people are booked for breaching regulations when they have not done so, but few, if any, bother to follow up their case once they have been acquitted. This man has set an example in that citizens should feel that they have a right to be compensated for other people’s mistakes.
This is where accountability comes in. But although this word has been used regularly, we still do not get the real meaning of it – or else we pretend not to when it concerns us.
Mr Sammut said that public entities that agree to redress do not risk denting their credibility. “Owning up to mistakes that are committed in good faith and making up for them in a reasonable manner is not a demonstration of weakness but shows an ability to consider matters fairly and equitably,” he said.
Wise words indeed. But it seems that our mentality is still far away from accepting all this.
The Ombudsman went on to say that people have the right to compensation if the behaviour of government entities breaches their fundamental right to good public administration.
The matter goes beyond traffic fines. What if someone breaks a leg while walking on an uneven pavement, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the local council? What if damage is caused to a car because of potholes in a road, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of a local council?
To take this further, if similar accidents happen in areas that are the responsibility of the government, should the government award such compensation?
Everyone speaks about citizens’ rights, but when it comes to the crux of the matter, these are quickly forgotten because our system has been like this for years on end. In other countries, citizens have a right to compensation and they do receive redress for mistakes committed by others.
Maybe it is time to start thinking more about these matters.