J. G. Vassallo

Democratic countries all the world over have assimilated the wisdom of devising checks and balances as a safeguard against the abuse of power by the government of the day.

In Malta, it took some time, after the attainment of Independence in l964, for our House of Representatives to take practical measures in this direction. In time, however, Parliament came round to appoint an Auditor-General and an Ombudsman, with the status of Officers of Parliament, operating out of the direct control of the Executive (the government of the day).

As such, these public officers have a brief to act as watchdogs of the public interest. The institutions they represent are not meant to play the role of wallpaper to embellish the Maltese democratic scenario. They are expected to perform and deliver.

To challenge their right of free expression – by denigration, by challenging their motive or otherwise by insinuating against them – is the ultimate form of suppression.

The fruits of freedom

After all, truth and standards of correctness are not established by a majority vote at a general election. No government is infallible and, for this reason alone, government has to submit to scrutiny. The scrutiny of politicians is not enough -and this particularly so in a highly polarised environment, where partisanship and objectivity are constantly in conflict.

It is for this reason, that independent, non-political officials have been appointed, with special powers to monitor public accounts and to protect the public interest by investigating complaints alleging irregularity and abuse of citizen rights in the public service.

One cannot enjoy the fruits of freedom without freedom or its efficiencies without its discomforts.

For any government-of-the-day, the discomfort arises when its shortcomings are exposed.

Malta has proved to be no exception to this rule. Free and audacious inquiries by the Auditor General and the Ombudsman have been publicly challenged by the government with a frequency that gives rise of democratic concern.

Ministerial broadside

The latest incident of this kind was the publication of a report by the Ombudsman on "Restructuring of Public Broadcasting Services Ltd" on 25 February. The report was tabled in Parliament on 13 April.

Commenting on the restructuring process, the Ombudsman referred, inter alia, to various shortcomings that were detected in the selection process prior to certain appointments, to "an abrupt departure from standards staff selection practice" and to what amounted to "lack of transparency" on the part of the PBS Board of Directors, when it came to a particular appointment.

On the same day, Investment, Industry and IT Minister Austin Gatt, fired a broadside at the Ombudsman, charging him with "inconsistency", "unfairness" and in "indulging in….making remarks apparently intended to, and certainly having the effect of, aggravating the potential distress of former employees"

This sort of language is characteristic of Dr Gatt. It certainly does not commend itself to the average citizen whose objective concern is for clean, businesslike government which plays fair with its staff and which is solicitous for the public interest when it administers public funds.

Independent and impartial officers

The Maltese taxpaying public needs complete, truthful information and the truth should not depend on whom it is to serve. At the same time, truth should be forever able to withstand the play of dissenting views - that is why independent and impartial officials have been appointed, with the agreement of both sides of parliament, to take charge of the institutions of the National Audit Office and the Office of the Ombudsman.

These two institutions are entitled to the support of all men (and women) of goodwill. To applaud the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General when they speak approvingly of government performance, and to undermine their credibility when they expose abuse of power or official high-handedness, reduces Maltese politics to a level evocative of the Little World of Don Camillo!

Unbecoming and anathema

Apart from being, on its own merits, unbecoming, this situation is anathema to EU practice and deserves to be so denounced.

The Ombudsman and the Auditor General are Officers of Parliament and are entitled to the support, as well as the protection, of the House when they are under public attack, the more so when the attack or criticism comes from a Cabinet source.

In such circumstances, unless Parliament finds it necessary to bring the Ombudsman or the Auditor-General to book, it should, in all decency, publicly stand by its Officers and proceed to rectify or remedy their findings.

Cabinet ministers interested in covering their flanks will stop at nowhere and, unless restrained, will not hesitate to turn their artillery on the Officers of the House (the Ombudsman and the Accountant-General), as they have done repeatedly in recent months, when it suited their ends. They will go on doing so at their pleasure, unless they are stopped in their tracks. They can only be stopped by parliamentarians in Parliament. No one has taken the initiative.

This is why more and more PN electors have come to see the PN as insensitive and why PN propaganda slogans about "putting progress before power" increasingly sound so hollow.

It also explains why Malta's young generation is disenchanted by the example set by many politicians, and why only a handful out of the 8,000-strong student population at the University turned out, when they were addressed by the leaders of the political parties a few days ago

Parliament has yet to take the measure of the developing situation and act accordingly.

The democratic conscience of Malta and Europe awaits the outcome.

[email protected]