Why can't the Ombudsman take the Human Rights Commission's role, PN asks

PN MP Eve Borg Bonello on Wednesday questioned the need to introduce a new body to protect human rights when the Ombudsman could take on the role.

“The first question we asked ourselves when we read this Bill was a simple one: before creating a new institution, do we really need to start from scratch?” she said.

“Malta already has a constitutional institution that is independent of the government and has built a reputation for seriousness and impartiality over many years. Of course, I am referring to the Ombudsman’s office,” Borg Bonello said when speaking in parliament.

The bill setting up the commission started being debated in the House on Tuesday.

The new Commission for Human Rights and Equality will have the power to investigate private and public bodies and recommend action when rights are broken.

While the opposition broadly supports the bill, it has criticised the way the person leading the commission will be appointed, raising questions about independence from the government. 

Under the bill in its current form, parliament will appoint the commissioner with a two-thirds majority, while the remaining nine board members will be appointed by the commissioner following a public call.

However, if the government and opposition fail to agree on a candidate, the government can invoke an anti-deadlock mechanism and appoint the commissioner with a simple majority.

Borg Bonello said that, instead of creating a new watchdog, the Ombudsman, a tried-and-tested institution, should be made Malta’s National Human Rights Institution.

The proposal, the MP said, was made by the Ombudsman’s Office itself in 2024.

Under that proposal, the Ombudsman would have a dual role: promoting and protecting human rights while continuing to investigate shortcomings in the public sector.

The Ombudsman can only be appointed with a two-thirds majority without an anti-deadlock mechanism.

Other PN MPs also raised concerns with the bill. 

Contrad Borg Manche said the commission should have the power to take bodies it found culpable of discrimination to court.

Another PN MP, Rebekah Borg, said the bill defined discrimination too broadly.

“Not every difference is discrimination. Not every unpopular decision is discrimination. If everything can be labelled discriminatory, genuine cases risk being diluted,” she said.

The bill states that a person summoned by the commission could face criminal consequences for ignoring the summons or failing to provide information on whether the commission’s recommendations had been implemented. These include a €1,000 fine or three months’ imprisonment.

Borg said the bill did not specify how these criminal penalties would be enforced.

“The bill does not state who will enforce this offence or how proceedings will be initiated. A criminal penalty without a clear enforcement mechanism is not enforcement. It is a threat on paper,” she said.

Winding up the debate on the bill, Minister Rosianne Cutajar responded to some of the arguments raised.

Cutajar said the commission and the Ombudsman were not opposing institutions but would perform different functions.

She said other countries, including Ireland, had introduced similar commissions.

“There, this model has proven successful,” she said.

She said that, in cases where individuals breached the law, the police would have the power to enforce it.

The bill was unanimously approved at second reading and passed to the committee stage. PN whip Ivan Castillo said the Opposition would propose several amendments in committee.

Once the bill passes through the committee stage, Parliament will have to vote on it a final time before it becomes law.