Commissioner for Standards in Public Life George Hyzler faced questions from MPs on Wednesday in the wake of his report that taxpayer-funded adverts by minister Carmelo Abela breached ethical standards.

The report, published last week, found that the adverts which appeared in print media last year did not provide “information of value” to the public and were intended to boost the minister’s image.

The complaint was filed by civil society NGO Repubblika, who are insisting the minister refund the expense. 

Abela has defended the adverts, saying he has a duty to inform the public of his work.

Placed by a company called Striped Sox, the ad campaign cost the taxpayer €7,012.98, including VAT, to feature in Illum, Malta Today, The Sunday Times of Malta, The Malta Independent on Sunday, It-Torċa and KullĦadd.

In a meeting of the parliamentary standards committee on Wednesday, Hyzler faced questions  chiefly from Government representatives Glenn Bedignfield and Edward Zammit Lewis. 

Bedingfield questioned Hyzler’s decision to elaborate on the fact the minister had the adverts placed in newspapers at a time when rumours of an impending reshuffle were rife and whether the content of the adverts would have breached ethical standards if the accompanying picture had been removed. 

Replying, Hyzler said Abela had tried to justify the placing of the adverts by saying that the country was not in election mode and that it made little sense for him to seek to promote himself as a candidate. 

However in context, several news outlets had been carrying reports of an impending cabinet reshuffle, which proved to be founded a little over a month after the adverts had been placed.

“While clearly the advert was not intended for self-promotion from the electorate, it could be interpreted with the intention to influence the Prime Minister’s decisions through public opinion,” Hyzler said. 

“When wrongdoing occurs you often look for a motive, but even in the absence of a motive this does not mean that the act did not occur,” he added.

“There were more facts that lend credence to this conclusion, chiefly the urgency at which this advert was commissioned and the general rush to get it out quickly. We were told there were pressing time constraints and yet the reason for the rush was never explained. Additionally a number of grammatical mistakes can be observed, which are symptomatic of this rush. So much so, when the advert was republished on the Times the next day, these errors were not corrected.”

The Commissioner added that while he could not judge individual parts of the advert, when viewed in a wider context the campaign constituted a breach of ethics.

“In my opinion, when you look at all the parts put together, this advert constituted self-promotion as it highlighted the minister and did not shed light on the work the ministry was carrying out except through slogans. Had it been part of his electoral campaign this would be fine, but the state should not pay for it,” the commissioner said.

Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis said that the absence of clear rules on public spending could give rise to subjectivity and grey areas in such instances. He asked whether the Commissioner agreed that clear guidelines should be crafted on the matter, going forward. 

“I will wholeheartedly assist in the crafting of guidelines, but the absence of guidelines doesn't mean that certain principles, such as laws governing the use of state resources, cannot be applied,” Hyzler said.

“Guidelines cannot replace common sense. I’m not saying there is no grey area. It's normal for ministers to issue certain adverts, but in this case if you lay out all the circumstances you will see a blatant attempt at self-promotion.”

“It is impossible for guidelines to outline every parameter which might make an advert unacceptable, they cannot go into every single detail. Much like the functions of the law, certain principles can be established and the interpretation is left up to the courts.”

The committee is expected to vote on whether or not to adopt the report in next week’s sitting. The committee can choose to either adopt the report and decide on further action, negate it while giving detailed reasons for doing so, or ask the commissioner to investigate further or provide further details before a decision can be reached.