As the bulwark protecting citizens and the ‘conscience’ of public administration, the ombudsman and his commissioners deserve the utmost respect rather than the affront they have been subjected to.
What is worse is that, this time, the culprits are not irritated top civil servants having enough of a nosy ombudsman. This time, it was members of parliament who provoked the ombudsman in using some very harsh language in his Ombudsplan 2023.
The comments made by outgoing Ombudsman Anthony Mifsud are not only a legacy to his successor but also an indictment of both the house of representatives and some quarters in the public administration.
He complains of lack of coordination and the “realistic and material” detachment between his office and parliament. Elements within the public administration, especially some regulators and public entities, Mifsud remarks, still consider the ombudsman as an unnecessary hindrance which they reluctantly have to tolerate.
The ombudsman, together with the auditor general and the commissioner for standards in public life, are the three main – if not only – institutions that could really and truly be said to be doing their utmost to keep the government in check.
Parliament too should have such function, but it has constantly been failing miserably. Indeed, the ombudsman complains that MPs on the house business committee have yet to discuss and approve the Ombudsplan 2022 submitted a year ago.
The law lays down that the finance required for the ombudsman’s salary and allowances and other resources cannot exceed a maximum amount indicated in the ombudsplan approved by parliament.
One can only hope the failure to approve the 2022 plan was the result of an omission or time constraints rather than by commission. An attempt to somehow control the ombudsman by pulling the purse strings would be an aberration, if not anti-constitutional too.
Still, you never know. After all, it has been said lately that recommendations by the ombudsman should only be implemented when his final opinions reflect and promote the government’s declared policy. Is there need to recall that the ombudsman is an officer of parliament not of the government of the day?
The ombudsman has been around for more than a quarter of a century now and, throughout the years, he has gone beyond simply investigating citizens’ complaints and making recommendations to ensure a better public administration.
Various issues were addressed such as transparency, accountability, the rule of law and the right to information. Still, as Mifsud rightly points out in the latest ombudsplan, such opinions were noted by society and the media but generated very little reaction by MPs.
No wonder international institutions, such as the Venice Commission, have been pressing for the office of the ombudsman, the auditor general and the standards commissioner to be strengthened.
It is, however, crystal clear the government thinks otherwise, irrespective of the lip service it pays to all three institutions. Practically all ombudsmen who served since 1995 have had their ‘differences’ with the government but it seems this administration is taking the matter to unprecedented heights.
Mifsud’s term of office expired more than a year ago, but the government and the opposition say they cannot agree on a suitable successor. A standards commissioner has also to be named but we are still in the dark on what is going on.
Institutions the people rightly consider as being their champions and protective shield sadly appear to feature way down on the agenda of their representatives in parliament.
What an affront to the rule of law.