In the latest Ombudsman report, the Commissioner for Health accused the government of “oppressing” patients by denying them free and essential medicine they are entitled to and repeatedly breaching laws by refusing to revise discriminatory protocols.

It is hardly likely that the commissioner used such strong language lightly. Indeed, going by his report, he does have a strong case to make about the administration’s attitude over some of his recommendations.

The health minister, his ministry, or the principal permanent secretary may argue that the number of complaints referred to the Ombudsman is quite small or, even, insignificant compared to that of patients treated in state hospitals.

This is true, but in such an important matter as the health sector, even one single case or grievance ought to be given the importance it deserves if it is well justified. It is not good enough either for the administration to argue that most of the Ombudsman’s arguments have been implemented. Pending issues would need to be tackled as well.

So, what has led the health commissioner to make such a strong complaint against the administration?

He argues that recommendations he has made to rectify what he calls discriminatory and illegal protocols have been left pending since 2013, that is, when the new Labour administration took over.

Six years is a very long time for such a matter to be tackled, more so when it has been raised by the health commissioner, who is one of the defenders of the citizen within the office of the Ombudsman.

What is even more disheartening is that some of the protocols refer to cancer drugs.

Yet another serious pending complaint is over the issue of branded medicine for those who, for some specific reason, cannot take generic drugs.

The health minister had committed himself to ensuring that special allowance be made for these patients. However, the health department is not honouring the commitment.

Again, the health commissioner finds the matter as being of serious concern because patients are bound to suffer the consequences unless they are given the right treatment.

This is not right, even more so in times when the government is running a surplus in its finances.

Since the administration did not honour his recommendations over the discriminatory protocols, he reported the matter to the health minister, the Prime Minister, and even to Parliament.

But he has not got anywhere yet. Should the matter now end there?

In the commissioner’s view, the health ministry seemed to be taking advantage of the fact that the office of the Ombudsman does not have executive powers.

If this is really the case, what is the point of having an Ombudsman?

The problem is that not even Parliament appears to be enthusiastic enough to deal with the Ombudsman’s representations.

According to one Ombudsman’s report, none of his office’s referrals had been actively considered.

This has led him to conclude that this statutory procedure provided for in the Ombudsman Act, meant to be a final safeguard for redress against injustice to aggrieved citizen, is proving to be ineffective.

In light of all this, who is going to rectify such an anomalous situation?