Icky ministers wanting to make nasty partisan comments in a public and official manner now have an escape route, courtesy of the commissioner for standards in public life.

The commissioner, Joseph Azzopardi, has decided he cannot do anything about a statement issued by the Department of Information on behalf of the prime minister and the cabinet. The comments in the statement had a partisan tone and should not have been published via official channels, he concluded. Still, there was nothing to do because, by law, the commissioner “shall not prejudice the powers and prerogatives of the prime minister in respect of the cabinet”.

It was a case of having the cake and eating it too: finding the prime minister and his cabinet colleagues had erred but recommending no further action. That is certainly not what is expected of a standards commissioner, especially at a time when continuously raising the bar is a necessity.

Yes, it is in the public interest that cabinet ministers can have frank and open discussions and make free decisions. Therefore, the need for confidentiality, otherwise, the principle of collective responsibility and government unity itself could be compromised.

The Standards in Public Life Act bars the commissioner from demanding information or documents if the prime minister so certifies for given specific reasons. This includes “the disclosure of the deliberations or proceedings of cabinet...”

Kevin Cassar, the complainant, felt the partisan comments in the press release did not respect the political impartiality of the public service, as ministers are bound to do by their code of ethics. He knew the commissioner had already investigated the case of a minister who made partisan political statements through a Department of Information press release and concluded the code of ethics had been breached.

The complainant asked the commissioner to see whether the principles he had already set were adhered to in this latest case. He did not ask the commissioner to look into any cabinet document, debate or decision. There was no need. Cassar only wanted to know whether the comments published breached the code of ethics.

The commissioner only had to look into the wording used in a statement now in the public domain, not into any dossiers it could have been based on, who drafted it and whether all ministers were in favour.

Why, exactly, he felt he should ask the prime minister whether the press release in question was discussed and approved at a cabinet meeting prior to publication is anybody’s guess.

At best, it was a superfluous question as asking for an explanation would have sufficed. It certainly allowed the prime minister to invoke provisions of the law on which the commissioner then based his decision not to go any further.

The prime minister’s reply confirmed that making partisan political comments was indeed the intention: “I write on behalf of the cabinet of ministers [...] about the complaint made by former Nationalist Party candidate Prof. Kevin Cassar.”

He continued in the same vein as the press release at issue. To his credit, the commissioner made it evident in his report he did not like this attitude.

The bottom line: an individual minister can be sanctioned for ethical breaches but not the college of ministers. The former dean at the university’s faculty of law, Kevin Aquilina, was right when, 11 years ago, he wrote that, in cases of maladministration, collective ministerial responsibility reduces itself to a question of governmental survival rather than governmental accountability.