The Ombudsman is questioning once again whether the employment of people from outside the public service on a ‘position of trust’ basis is in line with the Constitution.

In the 2018 Ombudsplan, which was tabled in Parliament earlier this week, the Ombudsman said he had received “authoritative advice” that such employment by the government was “irregular”.

According to information tabled in Parliament in past years, a number of government jobs, ranging from dog handlers to cleaners and from maintenance officers to messengers, were given out on a position of trust basis.

The Ombudsman, Anthony Mifsud, said there were clear rules in the Constitution regulating how people from outside the public service should be recruited.

Quoting from the Constitution, the Ombudsman said any recruitment from outside the public service should not discriminate between people on the basis of their political beliefs and any such employment should only be done in the interest of the public service and the country in general.

The practice by successive administrations in no way makes it legitimate

Nowhere did the Constitution provide for the employment of people from outside the public service on a position of trust basis, he pointed out.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman said no other law could supersede what was expressed in the Constitution to ensure efficient public administration by competent officers hired after a competitive and transparent process.

The Ombudsman said the continued hiring of people on a position of trust basis by successive administrations in no way made the practice legitimate.

There had to be political consensus to provide for regulations that limited the practice to “exceptional” circumstances that truly required the service of a person of trust from outside the public service in full respect of the Constitution, he said.

His predecessor, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, called for a parliamentary debate on the matter.

The 2018 Ombudsplan highlights the need for more government transparency and accountability. Noting that progress had been made in the provision of documents for public consultation, the Ombudsman remarked the same could not be said for information about activities, contracts and projects involving ministries and public authorities.

Information, he added, was usually withheld, for the same two reasons, namely commercial sensitivity and the provision of the information not being in the public interest. ­“Reasons which often turned out to be unjustified excuses,” the Ombudsman said.

Secrecy and hiding information on how the common good was being administered was not to the citizens’ or the government’s advantage, the Ombudsman said.

It often led to suspicion and speculation about bad and abusive governance, he continued.

It was every citizen’s right to know how his or her money was being administered.

The public interest trumped all other considerations, including commercial sensitivity or political convenience, he said. The political class must accept “without reservation” that its work was subject to the scrutiny of auto-nomous and independent authorities. That scrutiny, Mr Mifsud continued, should be continuous and timely and not limited to a popular vote brought about by an election or referendum.

jacob.borg@timesofmalta.com