While commentators have, time and again, questioned if the Office of the Ombudsman should have more "coercive powers", by which its recommendations can be enforced, the Parliamentary Ombudsman himself, judge emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon thinks otherwise.
In an interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday he said that while enforcement falls into the remit of the Law Courts, his recommendations carry a moral weight which make the institutions duty-bound to take heed and mend their ways for their own benefit as well as that of the people.
Asked if the Office of the Ombudsman should have more "coercive powers", Zammit McKeon said: "I don't believe in executive power. I don't believe I should give orders to the executive, that is the job of the courts. My job is to recommend," and due to the weight of the Ombudsman's recommendations, the authorities feel a "dutiful" pressure to implement them, he said.
The Ombudsman is there primarily to investigate acts or omissions of government. "Government is a complicated structure in modern times. So, we refer to and deal with the traditional definition of government, meaning its administrative institutions, but nowadays we also deal with local councils and limited-liability companies in which the government is a majority shareholder and has a controlling interest, such as Arms and the Gozo Channel."
"All this is 'government' and so falls within the Ombudsman's remit. We have moved from dealing strictly with the civil service to including public administration as well."
Zammit McKeon said that the Office of the Ombudsman's role is to listen to everyone, "even if they are not in the right". He added: "Not everyone who comes to us has to be in the right, but we will still listen." But he had a warning to give: "Whoever comes in an attempt to vindicate themselves through the Ombudsman is sorely mistaken."
Zammit McKeon said the office is prompted to investigate if a written complaint by a person is received, making emphasis on the term person, "whoever they may be, from Maltese citizens to migrants, lawful or not, to regular holiday-making tourists or an organisation, which would have a complaint against the public administration". He said that following the investigation, the Ombudsman or his commissioners make recommendations with a "strong moral authority", which have the final word on the matter.
Zammit McKeon also noted that a direct complaint is not always necessary for the Ombudsman to open an investigation. Malta is "lucky" to have an institution with the ability to carry out "Own Initiative Investigations" easily, adding that in other countries, such as the UK, this ability is highly curtailed by bureaucratic complexity. To give an example of these special investigations, the Ombudsman cited two past cases, which prompted him to intervene after incidents caught his attention through news portals; the first being the domestic hazard of an unguarded lift shaft within a social housing apartment complex and the other related to the Gozo Channel, urging people not to remain in the hold. He said that as a result, today, the hold is closed to the public as soon as the ferry embarks and even high government officials have been obliged to comply with the new regulations.
"Wherever I can intervene, I intervene, particularly if I cannot let it lie in good conscience. While I keep to my remit, by the action of the Ombudsman, the life of the vulnerable can be bettered and people without a voice can be given a voice," Zammit McKeon said.
Going into detail on the finality of the Ombudsman's findings and subsequent recommendations, Zammit McKeon said that while the decisions of the three commissioners within the Ombudsman institution, "yet strictly independent [of the Ombudsman]", may be subject to a review by the Ombudsman on request of the complainant by right, the Ombudsman's conclusion on a matter is final without any option of appeal.
Zammit McKeon outlined incidents in which members of the public took to social media to speak ill, unjustly, of the Office of the Ombudsman and his inability to retort the unfair complaint in any way due to his Oath of Secrecy, as outlined by section 22 of the Law of the Ombudsman. That being said, he noted that the guarantee of the Ombudsman's secrecy is a double-edged sword in the Ombudsman's favour too, since it allows complaints to be made with full transparency and honesty.
Zammit McKeon noted that this gains particular traction when ensuring that an investigation has been carried out meticulously, giving the example of listening to potentially-involved third parties, "to get the complete picture". He said that such a painstaking investigation allows the Office of the Ombudsman to pinpoint the exact fault of a case with the consequence of putting the conclusions beyond the possibility of any appeal and bestow the recommendations with "strong moral authority".
Additionally, apart from investigation, Zammit McKeon said: "The Ombudsman also acts in his capacity as the incumbent [holder of the office] and is responsible for giving his own emphasis to aspects of the approach." He continued: "I was fortunate to find a functioning institution but one of my duties is to make it better than it already is."
Zammit McKeon's philosophy for his tenure is simple. "I want the office to be able to speak even in my absence." Furthermore, even in the case that a complaint is not sustained, he insists on working for improvement of the service in question, for example, simplifying a system or make it more transparent. He summed his point by making reference to article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, entitling persons to the right to good administration. "If I made a request for a service, give me a reply within a reasonable time and, if it is turned down, then give me the reasons for your refusal without my having to go to the Ombudsman. This is where the public administration has to mend its ways to make itself more credible for the sake of the people."
Asked if this approach was a pro-active measure to cater for the "worst case scenario", Zammit McKeon disagreed. "While the person may not have a ground on the basis of his complaint, it is the moral obligation of the modern state to render its procedures more manageable, less cumbersome and more transparent." To sum up his role, Zammit McKeon was asked if the position of the Ombudsman was the answer to the adage, "who watches the watchmen?" to which he replied, "I would not say watchman, but overseer. Part of the Ombudsman's job is to oversee the operations of the administration".
Moving on to the general running of the Office of the Ombudsman locally, Zammit McKeon began by saying: "You don't have an idea what an excellent reputation we [the Ombudsman's Office] have on the European level. What we [Malta] say abroad has a lot of weight and is well-respected." Furthermore, "local respect is also good because the institution is credible. One can never impose if they are not credible", he said.
Asked about local respect, Zammit McKeon was quick with the figures of the 137% spike in assistance given by the Office of the Ombudsman in the last year and attributed it to "increased assistance". Pressed for more detail, he said: "Governmental authorities are being more helpful when citizens come to file a complaint. While it doesn't take much to point a person to the correct authority, it caused a boom in the assistance given to people due to increased access."
Additionally, Zammit McKeon said that his push for increasing the publicity of the Office of the Ombudsman also contributed to the rise in complaints. For him, an institution may be working very well, but "should it slack with regards to its public presence, the people won't know it exists".
Zammit McKeon's publicity campaign for the Office of the Ombudsman involved his personal presence, apart from stands, at the Fresher's Weeks of the University of Malta as well as MCAST. He said that the Fresher's events were so successful that plans are firmly in place for the 2025 Fresher's to have all the parliamentary integrity bodies on one stand with the message being, "Come and know more. It's in your interest to know".
The effect of the increased public exposure may speak through the figures with the number of complaints requiring the Ombudsman's assistance in 2023 rising by 442 to a total of 764 in 2024. "The Ombudsman is getting popular," Zammit McKeon quipped. At the end of 2024 the number of open investigations increased by 61% from 158 in 2023, to 254 in 2024, while 463 were closed in 2023 and, a 25% increase, to 578 in 2024, including investigations opened in previous years, he said. The implementation rate (meaning the number of times a complaint is sustained by the Ombudsman with the public administration subsequently implementing the recommendations of the Office) stands at 78%.
Zammit McKeon went on to point out that the perception that the recommendations made by the Ombudsman are ignored is mistaken. He added that 14 and 15 sustained recommendations were not implemented by the public administration respectively in 2023 and 2024, respectively, and had to be tabled in Parliament.
Zammit McKeon said that the 2025 Ombudsplan recommended the setting up of a Select Committee of the House to tackle any tabled reports and enforce implementations, should recommendations have remained unimplemented. In a word, use parliamentary power to make the institutions "do their job", he said.
Though a recommendation may lie untouched in Parliament, since that is the end of the office's remit with "the buck stopping there" for the Ombudsman and responsibility then being conferred to the MPs of the House to "take up the fight", Zammit McKeon sketched how the Ombudsman's report may be lawfully used in an alternative way for the individual to receive justice. He said that in the Maltese Constitutional Courts the Ombudsman's report may be presented by the plaintiff as strong evidence. He added that this was done in the past and gave a highly-publicised example of an academic who saw justice and was awarded reparations in a ruling that hinged on the Ombudsman's report.
In view of potential, tangible benefits for complainants, the institutions, and the public at large, the arguably ironic challenge the Office of the Ombudsman faces is a thwarted perception by the public due to its free service, Zammit McKeon said. He continued that the Maltese culture has the public evaluating quality of service relative to its cost; such that "an expensive lawyer is perceived to provide excellent services therefore, a cheaper lawyer must provide a lesser quality of service, which is certainly not the case. Since the Office of the Ombudsman provides its services free of charge, it could theoretically push the public away from seeking assistance". Zammit McKeon insisted, "the office of the Ombudsman doesn't work like that. Though a culture change is ongoing, it remains a daily challenge. The vulnerable need an institution that listens".
Stepping up from public perception and asked about the Ombudsman's dynamic with the authorities themselves, Zammit McKeon replied: "I have an excellent working relationship [with them]. We interact, and we may not always agree nor will they always implement what I say, but wars are never waged." He continued: "To date, I have worked this way and I intend to continue like this for my five-year term."
Photo: Jurgen Cassar