Three cheers for transparency

The Ombudsman's cri de coeur, expressed in an interview in The Malta Independent on Sunday of September 1, raised a veritable hornets' nest.

Quoting chapter and verse, the Ombudsman, Joe Sammut, fired an astonishing broadside. He declared that "there is a whole mess at the AFM and that armed forces personnel registered the highest number of complaints to the Ombudsman last year."

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority ranks as the second highest institution, after the AFM, to generate complaints to the Ombudsman. The Authority seems to be condoning developers' tactics postponing enforcement action against illegal constructions.

The Ombudsman had strong views and expressed his concern on the issue of accountability of autonomous government agencies, authorities and corporations that are set up independently of civil service regulations. These are becoming less transparent and less and less accountable, behaving as if their funds are not public funds.

Mr Sammut made specific reference to the case of the finance manager at Enemalta, who was attacked in his home by Nationalist thugs two days after the 1998 elections in the middle of the night.

The Ombudsman considered that the attack was work-related and recommended an ex-gratia payment of Lm1,500 in compensation. The government declined to pay compensation, without giving any persuasive arguments for its decision and without anyone bothering in authority to talk to the Ombudsman about the case.

The Ombudsman certainly did not mince his words. Speaking in his capacity as an officer of Parliament, he said that, in his personal opinion, "Parliament is not doing its job in keeping the administration under continuous scrutiny at the expense of accountability and transparency demanded by a healthy democracy."

These are, no doubt, strong words and the government lost no time in reacting.

The Department of Information issued a press release, written in testy language, to remark that the Ombudsman has "very unfortunately, to say the least, expressed opinions that are not only gratuitous but, taken as a whole, do nothing to enhance the respect in which the institution (of the Ombudsman) should be, and is, in fact held".

The Ombudsman's remarks are considered "highly inappropriate" and "the tone of the interview and the way the Ombudsman handled many of the issues can be said "to give the distinct impression" that they "have the flavour of political comment".

At no point did the Government statement produce factual evidence to challenge the Ombudsman's opinions.

On the following Sunday (September 8) the Prime Minister repeated more or less the same arguments in the course of an extended interview. He declared that, in his view, the Ombudsman went beyond the limits of his duties, holding that his remarks were "unacceptable".

On the same morning, The Sunday Times upheld the Ombudsman's initiative and the people's right "to know what such an important head of a parliamentary institution has to say". In no way should Government put any pressure to 'gag' the Ombudsman or limit his access to the media.

"We need more people in all walks of life who are prepared to make their voices heard," The Sunday Times emphasised.

Another editorial published in Malta Today that same morning was even more outspoken.

The reaction to an interview by the Ombudsman in a newspaper was pathetic and reveals the severity of the crisis, it declared. "Written in English and in the inimitable style of someone who has made herself out to be Malta's media guru, it confirms how dangerous PR can get if left in the hands of amateurs and individuals with a chip in their shoulders," it thundered, adding that "this is chaos at its best".

The leader writer of Malta Today may know something the rest of us don't know, contributing to what he calls a "menu of disasters".

In the words of The Sunday Times this whole episode "is not a matter of politics but of institutional credibility".

It raises serious issues that must be considered with absolute detachment. The facts highlighted by the Ombudsman must be thrashed out on their merits and not fobbed off by rhetoric.

Neither the Cabinet, nor individual ministers and departments have a divine right to be guided by their whims in matters of public administration. Parliament appointed an Ombudsman by common consent to investigate, under its authority, any irregularities in the public sector brought to his notice and to submit proposals for the settlement of complaints.

It is self-defeating as well as discourteous to ignore the Ombudsman and it is up to Parliament to exercise due diligence and follow up the outcome of the Ombudsman's recommendations - particularly if and when these are brushed aside with an arrogance akin to contempt.

The Ombudsman was at once explicit and specific when he lamented that Parliament, as a whole, was not doing its job in keeping the administration under continuous scrutiny" on the one hand and not "keeping the government accountable to the people" on the other.

In the light of this, the government's accusation to the effect that the Ombudsman's remarks had the flavour of political or partisan comments was, to say the least, uncalled for, and outright unfair.

If at all, the Ombudsman showed courage and integrity by standing up to be counted, knowing full well that open criticism, however justified, is anathema to the ruling administration.

On this fundamental issue, the media acquitted themselves positively in the role of watchdogs of the public interest. After all, the advocacy of the Ombudsman militates in favour of the right to know.