Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi is in favour of seeing changes made to the composition of the Standards Committee in Parliament, saying that as things stand it is too confrontational.

The committee is currently comprised of two MPs from the government and two from the Opposition, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives serving as the chairperson.

He believes the composition of the committee should change. "There are other jurisdictions we can look at. In the UK it's different, for example. The UK also has a larger Parliament so perhaps having an MP singled out is not so much of a problem for the government of the day when compared to here, and so even culturally there is a difference in terms of how we approach politics."

The Commissioner said he supports the idea of lay people forming part of the committee. "I am in favour of that, yes, but of course one has to be careful to choose the right people."

The Commissioner said he wants to see a larger Standards Committee, made up not only of MPs, but also local councillors and lay people. "The current composition of two against two is too confrontational and limited." 

In an interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday, the Commissioner, who is a former Chief Justice, said he would also like to see changes to the period of prescription for ethics investigations.

Currently, a complaint under the Standards in Public Life Act shall not be entertained unless it is made not later than thirty working days from the day on which the complainant had knowledge of the fact giving rise to the complaint, or more than one year from when the fact giving rise to the complaint happened. The Commissioner believes this is too short a period.

Commissioner Azzopardi said that there should be a prescriptive period, "as it is very difficult for persons to defend themselves on something that happened 15 years ago, for example." "But the (current) period is quite short" in the Standards in Public Life Act, he said. "Ideally, it should be at least two years." He said that some issues come into the public eye later than the current law allows for investigation.

Azzopardi's appointment

Judge Azzopardi was appointed to his post in March of 2023; however he was not appointed by a 2/3rds Parliamentary majority.  The Nationalist Party was critical of his appointment and did not vote in favour.

Asked what his reaction was, the Commissioner said: "I wasn't happy, and I don't know what the reason was (for opposing my appointment). The only thing I can think of, is that 40 years ago I was a Labour Party candidate. Otherwise I don't know why, as I was appointed as a judge by the Nationalist government in 2003 and when I became Chief Justice there was no opposition in Parliament. At the time a 2/3rds majority was not required for that role like it is now, but I was congratulated by the Opposition Leader back then."

"Some members of the judiciary have been former political party candidates, and they did their job very well. Once you assume public office your forma mentis changes, I can assure everyone that. That's why I have full faith in all of my former colleagues. Once you assume public office you take an oath. I took an oath, I know the law and observe the law."

Asked whether he believes it was the right move to remove the 2/3rds requirement which ultimately allowed for his nomination to go through, and why he accepted the job, Commissioner Azzopardi said: "The reason I decided to accept the role nonetheless was that in the past we had Presidents of the Republic who were appointed in this way, and in my opinion they did their job well. So I didn't think it was going to affect me. I am still sorry that this (the opposition to his appointment) happened as I would have preferred to have been appointed by a 2/3rds majority, but that is the way things happened. I decided to accept the job anyway because I feel that I have something to contribute."

Regarding criticism made by the PN last September, that the Office of the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life has become another institution that does not function in the public interest, he said: "It's an opinion and I don't agree. Our last report, which was quite important, really contradicts this. Even in reports where complaints were not upheld, there were many points which were raised which unfortunately go by the wayside."

Sanctions

The Standards Committee has the power to sanction MPs who are found to be in breach of ethics. Questioned as to whether there were times he felt the committee did not impose strong enough sanctions, he said: "Speaking as a citizen rather than as the Commissioner, yes, I think so."

As to whether he believes some form of mechanism could be introduced to better regulate the type of sanctions to be issued depending on the severity of the ethics breach, Judge Azzopardi said such a mechanism would be helpful. "There could be some sort of Schedule indicating the kind of sanctions for the kind of breach introduced."

Regarding the type of sanctions available, he said that the maximum sanction an MP can receive is to be suspended for a period of time. He mentioned that in the UK there was an MP who was unseated, but due to the difference in electoral systems that would not be possible in Malta.

"But normally a decision by the Standards Committee to sanction an MP concerned should be a sufficient deterrent."

He gave an example of something that really irks him. "Once, the Auditor General had decided on a case saying that something was wrong. An MP's reaction was to say 'that is his opinion'. What kind of standards are these?" he asked. This applies to when MPs react to decisions by the Courts, Ombudsman and his office also, he said. "You may disagree with a decision, but we have to accept a decision by the Courts, the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and my office. You might not like that decision, but that is the decision."

"Sometimes mistakes are made, yes, and in the courts there is always the ability to appeal. We have a case where a decision by my predecessor was challenged in court, and the case is still pending. But we have to accept the decisions made by the institutions that are there to deliver decisions. That is one of the main tenets of the rule of law."

A recent decision the Commissioner gave led to former Minister Clayton Bartolo being told to apologise to Parliament. His apology was described as 'forced' by commentators, and during his statement had said he disagreed with the Commissioner's decision. Asked what he makes of this, the Commissioner made reference to his time as a lawyer. "When I was a lawyer I had lost some cases, and very rarely did I feel the decision was wrong, but it did happen. I once lost a case before the Court of Appeal and I was very angry, but I had to accept it." Using football as an example, he said: "At the end of the day one has to accept the decision of the referee, and that is something lacking in Malta."

Publication of reports

The Commissioner has publicly declared that his office should be able to publish reports where a decision is taken not to investigate.

The Commissioner has written to the Standards Committee three times to change the rules. As for why he feels it so important to publish reports where no ethics breach is found, and whether he received any reaction, he said that he had not received any official reaction.

The very reason this change is important, Judge Azzopardi said, is that there were decisions that were not made public. He mentioned one instance where a complaint against an MP was dismissed due to the prescriptive period. Both the complainant and the MP did not publish the report.

He said that sometimes there's a public outcry about an allegation, but then nothing is heard about it.

"Another reason is that sometimes we dismiss a complaint, however we would comment about the situation in the report. People should read the decisions, and not just whether a complaint was upheld or not. Sometimes we make suggestions, which are important in my opinion, as one of the functions of my office is to suggest changes and better governance."

'It's complicated'

The Prime Minister was criticised for attacking the Judiciary last year prior to the MEP elections. Asked whether he would consider that to be a breach of ethics the Commissioner said, "It's complicated. The Prime Minister is a member of Parliament, so we have to let members of parliament speak freely, which is very important. We also have to respect the decisions of the people who take them, be it the courts, Auditor General, etc. On the other hand, people may disagree with a decision. When I was a judge, and more so now, I never expected people to agree with all my decisions. What I don't like is when someone attributes to a judge or magistrate an ulterior motive," he said.

The former Standards Commissioner, George Hyzler, had proposed the setting up of a transparency register for ministers and parliamentary secretaries which would be accessible for the public. Commissioner Azzopardi said he agrees with the proposal. "In fact, it was part of the final recommendations made in an OECD report." Azzopardi said he has not heard any feedback from the government on this issue. 

minister, the Prime Minister, even with the Leader of the Opposition and with MPs."

Most of Europe, including France, Germany, Lithuania and Estonia, have good regulations regarding lobbyists, he said. "There should be regulation of lobbying."

He said, however, that it is difficult for people in power to register absolutely every meeting they have, "as it is easy to run into someone while just walking down Republic Street, but there should be some form of lobbying register and a regulator that can at least control lobbying activities, while also giving public access to such a register."

Apologies

The Commissioner has on occasion closed cases when an apology is given. But should such cases go before the committee regardless?

It is very difficult for a politician to apologise, he said. "Having an apology in writing, and the ones we accept are real apologies, is quite something. They are accepting that they did something wrong and will not do it again. Going before the Standards Committee, with it then deciding that an apology is enough, what's the difference? Yes they would have to deliver it in Parliament, but having the apology on paper is also effective."

Having a written apology from an MP is quite something, and rarely happened 30 years ago, the Commissioner said. He said that over the past 30 years there have been improvements in terms of accountability, but added that there is still much to be done.