The prime minister said yesterday the ombudsman lost his sense of fairness when he criticised the government in a newspaper interview on September 1.

Dr Eddie Fenech Adami said at the opening of a debate on the ombudsman in parliament that the remarks made by the ombudsman, Mr Joe Sammut, were arrogant and at times political.

At one time he said Mr Sammut could, if he so wished, enter the political fray but not as ombudsman.

Opening the debate, Dr Fenech Adami recalled how the office of the ombudsman was set up seven years ago by unanimous agreement of the House of Representatives in the wake of the Commission and then the Tribunal for the Investigation of Injustices.

That there had been such unanimous agreement on the creation of the office of the ombudsman and the nomination of the holder of the office was rare in Malta and significant, Dr Fenech Adami said.

The duty of the ombudsman was to hear complaints from the public over alleged bad public administration and make recommendations for redress.

The characteristic of the ombudsman was that he had to act on the basis of fairness.

Dr Fenech Adami recalled that parliament, two years ago, had been unanimous in confirming Mr Sammut for another five-year term.

In all the years since the office was set up, no one had criticised Mr Sammut for the way he operated. But then, suddenly, and inexplicably Mr Sammut had opted to give a press interview in which he made comments that were critical of all MPs and parliament. He had also complained that his recommendations were not being taken up by the government, when actually the number of recommendations which were not taken up was "negligible".

Dr Fenech Adami said he was very surprised how a person of Mr Sammut's standing and experience could make such remarks.

Fairness was pivotal for the ombudsman's operations but that meant he had to be fair with the government and the house too.

He had claimed he submitted reports to parliament but there was "no interest on the part of MPs". This meant that all MPs ignored his reports. This was not true, and even if it were, should the ombudsman publicly criticise the house in this way? How did Mr Sammut reach this conclusion?

Indeed, the House Business Committee had discussed his operations, when debating the ombudsman, for example, and Mr Sammut had reacted to the remarks that had been made there, such as on a case involving the Department of Social Security.

Once the ombudsman felt that his reports should be debated, or if he felt MPs were not showing interest, why had he not written to the Speaker calling for such debate?

Mr Sammut had also said that "the truth" was that issues which did not earn parties any political mileage were not picked up by politicians. So now the ombudsman was accusing all politicians, and not just MPs, and he felt he could decide what was the truth.

Dr Fenech Adami said it was highly unethical for Mr Sammut in the interview to have even mentioned names regarding cases raised before him.

He had mentioned the case of Tarcisio Mifsud and said he deserved compensation of Lm1,500 (after having been beaten up when the last election results were announced). Mr Sammut had said the government's arguments rejecting his recommendations were "unbelievable".

Dr Fenech Adami said he resented this comment. No government, whichever it was, should be treated in this way by an office such as that of the ombudsman's.

Mr Sammut had said that in this case, the prime minister had not "bothered" to speak to him. But did Mr Sammut ever request such a meeting? That the prime minister had indeed "bothered" was proved by the fact that the government had officially written to the ombudsman explaining why it could not uphold his recommendation. In another case, involving the Department of Social Security, Mr Sammut had asked to speak to him and his request was accepted.

To say, now, that the prime minister had not bothered to speak to him, when no such meeting was requested, reflected arrogance.

He could not understand how the ombudsman could have involved another two persons in the Mifsud case. What was even worse was how the ombudsman had said that the government had acted in one way "to accommodate" those two persons. To "accommodate" in Maltese political parlance meant to impart favours. So now the ombudsman wanted the government to give favours to another person.

The government had replied in detail to the ombudsman in this case, explaining how his arguments were wrong and how there was no comparison between the premeditated, commissioned, attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana, the person who was closest to the prime minister, and an attack by a drunkard on Mr Mifsud which had been assessed by the courts in a way which was well known.

Yet, the ombudsman had said that the government's reaction was unacceptable and insulting.

This, Dr Fenech Adami said, was shocking. He had known Mr Sammut since 1986. He had a wealth of experience, so how could he think he could say whatever he liked. How could he say that the government's reasons were "unbelievable"?

The compensation awarded to Mr Cachia Caruana was decided by the Cabinet and the Mifsud case had no resemblance to it, from any angle. Not even a schoolboy would make such a comparison. Yet, Mr Sammut was effectively telling the Cabinet what to do. The ombudsman, according to law, had no right to give lessons to the Cabinet.

On the armed forces, Mr Sammut had claimed that the whole promotions exercise was "a mess" and he expected to tell MPs what to do, telling them to send for the commending officer to demand an explanation from him.

Mr Sammut had referred to a report which he had not submitted yet, yet still criticised the government over it!

What was worth noting, Dr Fenech Adami said, was that of 76 cases involving the AFM, nine were awaiting reply, 25 had been dismissed, one was withdrawn, seven were outside his jurisdiction, one was accepted by the AFM and 31 cases were upheld. Of those, 22 of the ombudsman's recommendations had been implemented, five were awaiting implementation by the AFM and the ombudsman was reconsidering a further four. So how could the ombudsman say the system was in a mess?

Mr Sammut knew well enough how the promotions system in the AFM had been improved since the time when he was administrative secretary, although he was not criticising him for what happened at the time.

The ombudsman had said with regard to the promotions exercise there were some genuine mistakes and "some less genuine mistakes". By whom?

He had claimed the promotions procedure was changed "overnight" and soldiers now needed qualifications. Yet, this decision had been taken in 1995. It had not been implemented for a number of years but the AFM now felt it should be enforced in the interests of seriousness. The ombudsman had claimed soldiers had not been given the opportunity to achieve those qualifications. This was not the case, but even so, why had he not requested a House debate instead of going to the press?

In his interview the ombudsman also raised issues regarding promotions in the Planning Authority and elsewhere.

Under the Labour government, the ombudsman submitted a report on promotions in the authority and it was decided by the Labour government at the time that his recommendation would not be taken up. He was not saying the government was wrong, but the ombudsman had not gone to the press at the time.

In another case the ombudsman felt a person was wrongly dismissed. The competent tribunal decided that the dismissal was correct. The ombudsman had to realise he was not infallible. His duty was to investigate maladministration and recommend redress, but it was then up to the administration and parliament to decide whether or not to take up those recommendations and they were accountable to the people.

Furthermore, the ombudsman's duty was to report to the House, not the press.

The ombudsman had made a sweeping statement in his interview about public agencies not being financially accountable. That, surely, was a matter for the Auditor-General, not the ombudsman, to decide. Was he saying the Auditor-General was not doing his duty?

The government, Dr Fenech Adami said, expected political accusations from the opposition but it could not accept accusations from the ombudsman such as that Air Malta engaged summer workers on the basis of political considerations.

Where was his report on this matter? Had this happened now or under the former government? Was it the ombudsman's role to make such accusations?

It was true, Dr Fenech Adami said, that the government had reacted strongly to the statements made by Mr Sammut. It had a duty to protect its dignity, as well as the dignity of the office of the ombudsman itself.

He knew Mr Sammut as being an experienced man and he therefore could not understand how he could make such elementary mistakes and throw mud when he personified fairness.

Did he think no one would read his interview, maybe because it was carried in The Malta Independent? But even The Malta Independent was read.

Mr Sammut had said the Lands Department was "impossible" because, it was claimed, it did not know how much it owed in compensation for properties that were taken over. This was not true. Indeed, the department had carried out an extensive exercise in which it had established how many millions of liri accumulated over the years and were owed to the people and it was only now that something was being done for such people to be paid back. So why did the ombudsman make his comment?

It was highly objectionable that Mr Sammut, as ombudsman, had also claimed that the Inland Revenue Department had not published its regulations on the payment of arrears so that if somebody had friends, he could jump the queue.

Later in the interview, Mr Sammut also used the term "friends of friends" when he knew that this phrase was currently used by the leader of the opposition.

If Mr Sammut wanted to join the political fray, he could do so, but not as the ombudsman. But he could not, as prime minister, allow such claims to pass without reaction. He could not understand how Mr Sammut had lost his sense of fairness in this way.

It was true, as the ombudsman had said, that much remained to be learnt about the way the office of the ombudsman functioned. This case clearly showed that Mr Sammut had a lot to learn but it was also true that a mechanism was needed for the house to discuss the operations of the ombudsman more.

But it was not true that the ombudsman was not being heeded. Incredibly, Mr Sammut had argued that out of a parliament of 65 MPs, 20 were ministers and parliamentary secretaries who were not going to scrutinise themselves. How could he say that, especially when only a negligible number of his recommendations had not been taken up?

The backbenchers had also not escaped the ombudsman's criticism, with Mr Sammut claiming they had to toe the party line at all times. How could he say that? In the past there were occasions when he personally spoke against his leader and his party, Dr Fenech Adami said.

Dr Fenech Adami said that in the interest of the office of the ombudsman, he hoped this debate would be tackled objectively. He was not saying the ombudsman should not speak to the press but one had to be careful.

The government's view was that, save for the current tempest, the office of the ombudsman had worked well and it should be supported.

The government's official replies to Mr Sammut's statements had had that purpose because it felt the statements made by Mr Sammut did nothing to enhance public respect to his office.

He could not understand how Mr Sammut in his interview had adopted a know-it-all and a them-and-us attitude. Mr Sammut had been arrogant in his interview and he, as head of the government, had a duty to say so.

Mr Sammut had fired off accusations haphazardly when fairness to the citizen as well as the administration was central for the office which he headed.

Dr Fenech Adami said he was not saying he did not have confidence in Mr Sammut but the remarks he made in his interview were a mistake. He hoped this was a one-off occurrence but the ombudsman could not expect that he could speak to journalists in the way he had and not get a reaction.