Repubblika calls for public officials’ protection bill to exclude corruption

Rule of law NGO Repubblika has called for a proposed bill shielding officials from civil damages to be amended to exclude cases of corruption, abuse of office, and fraud.

In a statement Friday, the NGO said Bill 137 – which would see the responsibility for damages arising from civil cases against public officials shift to the state – would “protect corrupt officials”.

The NGO said the proposal would “nullify and dismantle the effectiveness” of part of the civil code granting victims of corruption the right to seek compensation from public officials.

Article 1051A of the civil code gives people the right to claim compensation from public officials who have “committed or authorised the act of corruption or who have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the act of corruption”.

Repubblika said the bill “does not remove this provision but rather nullifies it and dismantles its effectiveness”.

Under the proposed bill, public officials sued in a civil court for actions taken in the course of their work will have any eventual damages paid for by the state.

Speaking on Wednesday, Prime Minister Robert Abela said the state would not cover damages if a public official was found guilty of criminal offences or a civil court ruled they were grossly negligent, however.

“Simply put, when this new bill becomes law, victims of corruption will have to seek compensation from the state, not from the officials who committed corruption,” the rule of law NGO said.

“The personal consequences for the corrupt will now end unless there is a final decision by a criminal court. Precautionary measures against these officials will automatically end, as they cannot even provisionally withhold the money they have stolen through corruption.

“It must be clear that these are rights that citizens today have under the law and the government is taking them away.”

In civil courts, individuals or companies sue each other, and penalties generally take the form of financial compensation. In criminal ones, prosecutors press charges against defendants, who can be jailed if found guilty. 

While alleged criminal offences – including bribery and corruption – can form the basis of civil suits, such cases are separate and distinct from criminal proceedings.

Describing the proposed legal changes as a “serious and dangerous step backwards”, Repubblika said it “clothes corrupt officials in the armor of the state” while warning victims of corruption they cannot take action against public officials without a criminal conviction.

“Unless there is a conviction by a criminal court – which is something we know is rare in Malta in corruption cases – the corrupt official will walk away".

The NGO said that with the new law, the government was “providing an incentive for impunity... [and] closing an avenue that Maltese citizens and businesses who have been harmed by corruption have today”.

“We do not object to there being protection for public officials who have made an internal mistake. But this law does not differentiate between genuine mistakes and abuse of power”, Repubblika said.

“This reform is another wound in the career of the hijacking of the Maltese state and the systematic corruption that we suffer from. This law does not stop corruption. Instead, it guarantees impunity for it.”