Break the chain of command in an army and a crucial element of any disciplined force is gone. The home affairs minister at the time, Manuel Mallia, did just that when, in 2013, he decided to promote four military officers, one of whom would go on to become commander and another deputy commander – within weeks.

The ombudsman has branded that process irregular, illegal, improper and discriminatory, the result of a “tailor-made process to achieve a pre-ordained result”.

On the other hand, a judge, the present chief justice, had ruled that, although the accelerated promotions of the two officers were “dubious”, the court could not say they were unreasonable.

The home affairs ministry’s head of secretariat told Times of Malta that this judgment “contradicts the observations and conclusions made by the ombudsman and clearly demonstrates that the law was observed and respected”.

Yet, in his report, the ombudsman reports  being told by the permanent secretary at the home affairs and national security ministry he did not deem it appropriate “to inform the minister that, perhaps, his course of action was precipitous or downright illegal”.

The court decides on the basis of the law and the evidence brought before it.

The ombudsman, however, is empowered by law to investigate administrative decisions that may not only have been contrary to law, but possibly unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, improperly discriminatory; or in accordance with a law or a practice that may be unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or that was possibly based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact; or else was just wrong.

A decision by the court and a ruling by the ombudsman, therefore, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

It was evident from the outset that the government realised this would be an embarrassing situation for it because it tried to stop the ombudsman in his tracks by denying him the documents he needed to investigate the matter.

The issue ended up in court, which gave the go-ahead to the ombudsman to proceed, and that ruling was then confirmed by the court of appeal.

The government had good reason to be ashamed. Here was a minister who arrogantly decided to green light four promotions to the very top ranks of the army without even informing the commander about them and with no selection process being held.

He acted fast, so fast, in fact, that the ombudsman felt he should point out it took one of the most outstanding Allied commanders in World War II, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, six years to be promoted to lieutenant colonel and another three to become a colonel.

Mallia thought he had the discretion to promote officers notwithstanding the military procedures in place. His permanent secretary was too weak at the knees to object.

This was a mutiny of sorts, by a minister, civil servants who should have known better and officers who benefitted from double quick promotions, all acting behind the back of the head of the army.

What the present commander, his deputy and the other two officers – all valid and competent servicemen, no doubt – decide to do in the circumstances is between them and their conscience.

However, the prime minister has at least a political duty to act. He keeps saying that the institutions are working. That good governance and the rule of law prevail. In that case, he must respect and implement recommendations such as those made by the ombudsman in this case.

Failure to do so would be to mock what is an essential office in our democracy. It would perpetrate the ‘mutiny’ started by the previous administration.