The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate actions taken by or on behalf of the government. Which means the Ombudsman is often breathing down the public administration’s neck.

The Ombudsman plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the rule of law and the interests of citizens. The office of the Ombudsman promotes every person’s right to good administration and defends the citizens against maladministration, abuse of power and improper discrimination.

The office of the Ombudsman was introduced to Malta in 1995 and became a constitutional institution 12 years later. One would have expected that the passage of time and, hence, the experience gained would have served to strengthen such a vital office. Regrettably, that is far from the case as the latest comments made by Ombudsman Anthony Mifsud in his Ombudsplan 2020 clearly show.

He criticised the public administration’s lack of respect towards his office during investigations, pointing out that the problem often stems from a lack of understanding of the Ombudsman’s role to defend citizens.

Very worrying is the fact that the Ombudsman felt he had to highlight the “ignorance” of legal consultants representing public authorities when it comes to his office’s legal powers and role. Now, if such ‘specialists’, engaged precisely because of their legal expertise, lack adequate knowledge of the laws, who can give the correct advice?

God forbid they feign lack of knowledge about the Ombudsman’s powers and function simply to win time or defend an otherwise indefencible stand by the public authority they would be representing.

It must also be borne in mind that such legal experts are presumably paid good money, which, of course, is coming from the taxpayer, including the aggrieved citizen/s.

The Ombudsman also noted that when his opinions conflicted with government policy, they were often ignored by the public administration.

This is not the first time that the Ombudsman, and not just the present office holder but various predecessors too, has complained of being ignored. The same can be said of the public purse’s watchdog, the Auditor General.

This can also be due to the fact that although both the Ombudsman and the Auditor General table their reports in Parliament it is very rare that any of them are in fact debated by the House of Representatives. This has also been noticed by the Venice Commission, which, in its latest report on Malta late last year, recommended that Parliament should be obliged to debate reports addressed to it by the Ombudsman. Earlier this year, the Venice Commission adopted 25 “principles on the protection and promotion of the Ombudsman institution”. Among other points raised, it said the Ombudsman shall have a legally enforceable right to unrestricted access to all relevant documents, databases and materials, including those that might otherwise be legally privileged or confidential.

It also underscored the need for the Ombudsman’s reports to “be duly taken into account by the authorities”.

The very first principle listed touches a very raw nerve for many governments, including, one must readily admit, our own. Ombudsman institutions, the Venice Commission pointed out, have an important role to play in strengthening democracy, the rule of law, good administration and the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Regrettably, this area has become the Achilles heel of the Muscat administration. That may explain the Ombudsman’s concerns.