The control of national expenditure by Parliament, and by the People through Parliament, is a basic democratic prerogative.

It has to do with the ongoing struggle between Executive and People from century to century. Unceasing vigilance in this fight is essential for the maintenance of good democratic government. In the course of this struggle, the representatives of the people attach vital significance to the effective control of the strings of the public purse.

The key issue is whether the taxpayers' money is to be controlled by the elected representatives of those who earn it, or by the government that spends it.

Although the government of the day draws up its budget, it is Parliament that supplies the funds and authorises expenditure. And it is Parliament that has the power of scrutiny, and to see that public funds are neither misspent nor squandered.

Cornerstones

In the course of this struggle, the system of control of the public purse has been refined. Where the Westminster model prevails, there is a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to look into the nitty-gritty. There is an Auditor General to provide technical support.

In Malta, these two cornerstones have been laid. Whether they lie on solid ground is another matter.

There is express provision in the Constitution. (Section 108) for the office of Accountant General who, in his capacity as Officer of the House, is required to audit and report annually on the operation of all the departments and offices of the Government of Malta “including the office of the Public Service Commission, and the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and of all Superior and Inferior Courts in Malta”. The Constitution goes on to say that “nothing shall prevent the performance by the Auditor General of such other functions in relation to the accounts of the Government of Malta, and the accounts of other public authorities, and other bodies administering public funds in Malta, as may be prescribed by or under any law for the time being in force in Malta”.

In the performance of his functions, the Auditor General “shall not be subject to the direction or control or any other person or authority”.

Sterling service

The Auditor General has rendered sterling service to Parliament and to the People. His annual (now mid-year) reports have been meticulous, fearless and, where necessary, focused on problem areas, such as the observance of financial and other regulations, the collection of outstanding arrears of revenue, and bureaucratic incompetence.

The Auditor General has proved to be no respecter of persons, in the sense that he has operated without fear or favour. This performance drew admiration as well as ire.

Citizens of goodwill awarded him top marks. A few managed to grin and bear it. But, among the wrongdoers and malefactors, there were those who spat their venom, or who reacted with hostility.

Reaction is human. Hostility is undemocratic and unacceptable.

It was bad enough that, in recent years, the Auditor General was not given enough support in Parliament, when he highlighted, year after year, considerable shortcomings - which must have made him feel as if he were treading on water.

Things took a sharp change for the worse after his recent report to the Public Accounts Committee of the House on the running of the Voice of the Mediterranean radio station.

In this case, the Office of the Auditor-General was requested by the PAC to investigate events which occurred some years ago, and which had to do with gross irregularities involving mismanagement of not inconsiderable public funds.

Thankless job

It was a thankless job. Nationalist members of the PAC were outraged. They conducted a running fight during Committee proceedings, contesting the Auditor General's findings all the way. And they demanded that the investigator be investigated.

This amounts to shooting the messenger. It is a blatant anti-democratic manifestation that turns the concept of vigilance on public spending and related measures of accountability upside down.

It is even worse than that, as it flies in the face of express constitutional provisions, which specify that the Auditor General "shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority".

So long as the Malta Constitution is respected, the methods resorted to in banana republics are bound to leave a bad taste and will, as sure as night follow day, trigger an electoral reaction.

[email protected]