'Politically charged statements not the right way forward'

The government yesterday said it agreed that the Ombudsman's voice should be heard more in the House of Representatives, but it should not be through statements "amounting almost to contempt of Members of Parliament".

Reacting to a statement issued by Ombudsman Joe Sammut on Tuesday, the government said the "politically charged statements" he had made in a newspaper interview were not the right way forward.

Such statements, it said, included: "If someone has got friends he would jump the queue", as well as the labelling of government's arguments as "unbelievable" and "insulting".

The government said it had been painful for it to have had to issue a statement about Mr Sammut's comments. The intention was to ensure that the institution of the Ombudsman continued to receive the respect it deserved, from all citizens, from all institutions and from all office holders, "including naturally the Ombudsman himself".

The government observed that in his statement the Ombudsman had expressed satisfaction that "at least the government has noted what the Ombudsman had to say and directed departments and public agencies mentioned in the interview to act on the Ombudsman's critical comments".

The Ombudsman further stated that the interview was given with the intention of spurring parliament as a whole to take heed of his reports.

The government said that through the setting up of the Office of the Ombudsman, together with the setting up of local councils, the National Audit Office and the introduction of customer service charters in government departments, it had but one clear aim in mind: to give the citizen a better deal. The government spared no effort in setting up and providing these institutions with the necessary resources.

"Moreover, the government has continually supported these institutions to ensure that they carry out their role efficiently and effectively. It is a fact that these institutions have helped introduce a new work ethic that is customer oriented. The Ombudsman himself repeatedly acknowledges this as a fact in his annual reports.

"This is the background to the government's position that the Ombudsman's self-proclaimed shock treatment was unnecessary and potentially more harmful than beneficial. The introduction of new players in the field of public administration inevitably calls for a settling down period where all concerned, old and new, find their role and the best way in which to serve their purpose."

The government said it felt that in the Ombudsman's case, the politically charged statements were not the right way forward.

The government also referred the Ombudsman's statement: "If within a reasonable time no action is taken, in terms of sub-sections 22 (4) and (5) of Act XXI of 1995, the Ombudsman may report the case to the House of Representatives".

Between 1995 and 2001, the government said, the Ombudsman received 4,715 written complaints and 2,916 enquires. Of these, he had reported only 10 cases to the House of Representatives. In addition, the Ombudsman presented five reports made on his own initiative.

Alternattiva Demokratika yesterday described the government's first reaction to the Ombudsman's declarations in the press as "arrogant and undemocratic".

AD chairman Harry Vassallo said: "Rather than launching a vicious attack on one of the few institutions which enjoys the trust of civil society, the government should act to address the problems raised by the Ombudsman."

Dr Vassallo defended the right of the Ombudsman to criticise the whole political system and not just its symptoms, and expressed AD's appreciation of the work carried out by the Ombudsman.

Dr Vassallo also reiterated AD's call for a the appointment of a commission nominated by Malta's three political parties with the aim of reforming Maltese institutions in order to bring about more transparency and accountability.