If, under Joseph Muscat, the intended demolition of the rule of law followed a well-devised road map, on Robert Abela’s watch it has become a free-for-all. Calls to deal with the matter are usually met with empty promises and inaction.
No surprise really, seeing that standards in public life have hit rock bottom and, rather than taking the bull by the horns, the prime minister bends over backwards to rehabilitate wrongdoers. Political convenience is what matters to him, not good governance.
Public integrity is an inherent value of representative democracy as it ensures that leaders, elected or appointed, put the interests of the people first.
“Political leaders are essential to integrity: by setting the ‘tone at the top’, they demonstrate to society that integrity is a governance issue the government takes seriously. Moreover, how political leaders themselves behave directly impacts the quality of policymaking: when political leaders guide their decisions based on the public interest, society benefits.”
The above are excerpts from a voluminous report published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in October 2023. Themed ‘Improving the Integrity and Transparency Framework in Malta’, it was conducted at the request of the commissioner for standards in public life.
The report contains recommendations that the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, Joseph Azzopardi, says “merit serious consideration to improve the [Standards in Public Life] Act and overall integrity system in Malta, in line with international best practices”.
It seems Robert Abela is dead set to make Joseph Azzopardi feel irrelevant
Although in office for just over a year, the former chief justice appears to have already reached a point of frustration. That emerges from the article he wrote on The Sunday Times of Malta, making it amply clear that what the OECD suggested has not been given adequate weight by the powers-that-be in Malta.
The advent of the standards commissioner, he noted, helped to strengthen the collective understanding of expected ethical behaviour in public life. The law contributed to introducing an element of oversight but it has flaws that need remedying. Azzopardi listed some of them: the prescriptive period, which he deems “far too short”; the system of declaration of assets; advertising guideline, “a matter of concern”; and the publication of the standards commissioner’s decisions, which “do not constitute precedent”.
His frustration is evident when he remarked that, although he felt the advertising issue should be urgently resolved, the parliament committee for standards in public life “has yet to come to a decision and the matter remains pending”.
Another urgent matter that remains pending is Azzopardi’s proposal to the parliamentary committee empowering him to publish decisions not to investigate complaints the commissioner receives.
Whether coincidentally or by design, the article comes just a month after it became known that Abela had refused to apologise for having breached ethics over a Facebook advert when the standards commissioner offered to close the case if an apology was made.
The prime minister’s failure to apologise and the manner in which he reacted to the standards commissioner’s report can only be interpreted as a refusal to accept standards and to shoulder the consequences when the lines are crossed.
When the first standards commissioner, George Hyzler, kept raising the bar, Abela offered him another job overseas. Now it seems he is dead set to make Azzopardi feel irrelevant.
The prime minister keeps overlooking, or, rather, neglecting, the fact that continually raising the bar is essential to face changing times and challenges.
The standards commissioner is right. The prime minister is wrong, again.