Whistleblowers deserve better

Statistically, the government is approached by an average of seven whistleblowers a year but it remains unclear how many the authorities consider, what the reports are about and how many result in investigations or court action.

Besides that, the few high-profile cases that we had were surrounded by political controversies that, in the end, did not afford any statutory protection to the whistleblowers concerned.

How can we forget how the whistleblower working at Transport Malta was treated by the authorities after spilling the beans on what was going on at that agency when it came to driving licence exams? A pivotal witness was conveniently locked out of Malta in order to prevent him from duly testifying in court.

I have personally encountered cases of treatment of whistleblowers that were quite shocking, with bullying and harassment from colleagues and government departments unable or reluctant to say whether any action had been taken against their persecutors.

When considering whistleblowing in Malta, the fact is that, while it is comprehensive in terms of legislation, it is ineffective with respect to real cases of whistleblowers asking for protection.

The burden of proof is on the whistleblower. He or she must provide evidence of misconduct and prove that their whistleblowing is legitimate. In the EU whistleblowing directive, the burden of proof is always on the reported person, which significantly simplifies the process of reporting for the whistleblower. Whistleblowers can get free legal assistance, according to the EU whistleblowing directive, as well as compensation for moral damage.

As long as Malta does not follow the recommendations and protect its whistleblowers, this chance is also lost for Malta’s citizens. The longer Malta ignores whistleblowers’ safety, the more corrupt and unattractive investments will continue to be.

As whistleblowers often have access to information that sometimes cannot be detected by other integrity mechanisms and institutions, they constitute a unique added value to institutional safeguards and can make a vital contribution to the fight against corruption by promoting greater transparency and accountability in the central and local government.

If we truly want to incentivise whistleblowing, we must strengthen and widen our law to make it fully conform to the EU directive on whistleblowing. We must also, impartially and apolitically, render it meaningfully effective by bringing to life its protective provisions.

However, public attitudes towards reporting tend to change more slowly than the legislation. Raising awareness of whistleblower protection can lead to an increase in cases of reporting and, in consequence, be a valuable tool in the fight against corruption.

Mark Said – Msida