Six weeks after Joseph Sammut’s second term in office as Malta’s first ever Ombudsman came to an end, the two major political parties are still haggling over who will succeed him.
As things stand today, the office of the Ombudsman is certainly not functioning to the best of its abilities, simply because it has no chief.
Since it was set up 10 years ago, the Ombudsman’s office has dealt with hundreds of cases, has solved numerous disputes and has given citizens the opportunity to seek redress where an injustice has taken place.
Its mission statement, found on the official website, states that the office is “an independent and impartial institution” set up “to investigate and resolve citizens’ grievances about government departments and public bodies within (its) jurisdiction with fairness and in a timely and effective manner”.
It also promotes the right to good public administration and the right to complain against maladministration, to contribute towards an improvement in the quality of Maltese public administration and to promote a positive attitude among the Maltese public service towards the award of equitable redress for justified complaints.
There is no doubt that, generally speaking, the office of the Ombudsman has been up to its tasks, and the Ombudsman himself, Mr Sammut, was re-appointed when his first term expired. He presented his letter of resignation to the President on 21 July, but it was then agreed that his resignation would come into effect on 1 October, to give both sides of the House of Representatives more time to choose the person who will replace him.
October has come and gone, but no agreement has been reached by the government and the opposition on the new Ombudsman. A two-thirds majority is needed in the House for the new Ombudsman to be appointed.
In the meantime, complaints have continued to arrive at the Ombudsman’s office but no decisions are being taken.
In the Ombudsman’s charter, again found on the office’s website, it is said that the average time for the investigation of a complaint will be 50 to 60 working days. Benchmarks set by the office in respect of the response time to conclude its caseload are that 80 per cent of cases are to be concluded within three months, 10 per cent within four months, five per cent within six months and the remaining five per cent within a year.
With the position of the Ombudsman being vacant, one wonders if these timeframes will continue to be followed as the backlog increases.
The problem is, as usual, a political one. Neither the Nationalist Party nor the Malta Labour Party have come up with the name of a person who is acceptable to both sides. Neither of them wants to budge an inch and the names that have been mentioned – but not confirmed – so far have not found favour.
The government and the opposition have both appointed three-member committees in a bid to find a solution. Meetings have been held to no avail.
There are questions that need to be asked. Why is it that the two parties left it so late in the day to find a replacement for Mr Sammut? It was a known fact that he would have to be replaced this year. The Ombudsman’s function is extremely important to the administration of the country and the two parties should not have allowed Mr Sammut’s term of office to expire before starting to discuss the issue.
Secondly, how is it possible that, so far, none of the people who have been suggested as a possible candidate have been approved by both sides? Surely, there are several people whose integrity and impartiality cannot be questioned?
Thirdly, the more time that passes, the more difficult it will be for the new Ombudsman to deal with the growing number of cases on his or her desk.
What is beyond dispute is that the two parties should come up with a solution, and fast. The office of the Ombudsman cannot be left without a chief.
Page 7 letters