The past nine months in office as parliamentary ombudsman have given me a profound understanding of the institution’s crucial role in our society. The institution is there not only to investigate complaints against the public administration but, many a time, as a mediator, giving a voice to persons who are vulnerable or placed by the wayside of mainstream policymaking.
The role and function of the ombudsman extends well beyond resolving complaints and championing individual rights. To sustain its relevance, the institution must be proactive and attentive, maintain continuous social engagement and respond effectively to daily challenges.
In the past nine months, we have endeavoured to reach out to those persons who, although they require our services, are hesitant to make the move, generally because they are unaware of its autonomous and straightforward approach.
We have utilised our “own initiative” investigations to address issues highlighted by public outcry, media reports and revelations during complaint investigations. In 2024, we are committed to pursuing these initiatives whenever required, making them more incisive to bring about change for the better.
We have generally found tangible cooperation from the various entities that make the public administration, with some more responsive than others. By having regular straight-talking meetings, we have made significant progress. Our target for 2024 is to encourage the public administration to be more open when reacting to complaints, timely when giving written replies and more willing to implement recommendations, significantly improving people’s lives.
We need a National Human Rights Institution established in this country
Over the past nine months as ombudsman, I have strongly advocated for the juridical recognition of good administration as a right of the person. Having good administration as a principle embodied in our domestic law comes about from the need for the public administration to become better in its approach to the public, more transparent in its deeds, fairer and more accountable when providing its services.
In October, ombudsmen and defenders of human rights from across the Mediterranean and Europe convened in Malta on the office’s initiative to discuss with local academics and experts the benefits of having good administration recognised as a right embodied in domestic law.
The conference’s bottom line was positive in the sense that the general feeling was that the right could be a reality if there were the political will to make it so.
In 2024, I intend to strive to see a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) established in this country. The need for such an institution in Malta is more pressing than ever. Our country is conspicuous across Europe without a dedicated NHRI in place. The office of the ombudsman in Malta has long championed this cause, proposing to become the NHRI, which is the case in many European countries.
The proposal offers several significant advantages. The Ombudsman Act as a legal framework is there and has been tested over time. The act provides a robust foundation for it to operate as an NHRI. The provisions of the act conform with the Paris Principles as far as independence, mandate and authority are concerned.
By not reinventing wheels of any sort, the established operational set-up of the office can be utilised for the purpose of future action as an NHRI, including existing infrastructure, experienced people and procedures for specialised handling of complaints, including human rights breaches.
By designating the ombudsman institution as the national NHRI, the country could have a practical, resource-efficient and effective way to strengthen its commitment to human rights. The office of the ombudsman has sent a proposal to the government about this important matter and discussions will be set in motion in the coming weeks.
In 2023, there were a number of cases where the ombudsman and the commissioners used their discretion according to law to refer final reports regarding investigations to the House of Representatives in cases when the public administration did not implement recommendations.
Every time a final report was sent to parliament, that report was promptly tabled by the speaker of the House. After this happens, publication takes place on the office’s website and, more often than not, in the media. Unfortunately, the process stops there to date, as neither the House nor its committees formally discuss the reports.
The ombudsman has long advocated the need for final opinions referred to the House of Representatives to be discussed by an appropriate Committee of the House.
The present speaker of the House supports this approach. In fact, at the October conference, the speaker proposed that, on the same lines that the Public Accounts Committee reviews reports of the auditor general, a Standing Committee on Public Administration should deliberate on the reports submitted by the ombudsman and the annual governance action reports compiled by the office of the principal permanent secretary.
He emphasised that the House of Representatives, the ombudsman and the principal permanent secretary share a common goal: to promote good governance and excellence in public administration. This shared interest should be enough to foster a spirit of civility and cooperation.
I am eager to see this development in the coming months. In the meantime, I shall continue to engage with both sides in parliament to find ways to strengthen the relationship between the ombudsman and the House of Representatives.
In conclusion, as we start the New Year, I am committed to doing my very best to reinforce the role of the institution day by day.
Our mission remains steadfast: to ensure that fairness, accountability and good governance are not just ideals but become realities in people’s everyday lives.
Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon is the parliamentary ombudsman.