The appointment of persons of trust, or political appointees, by cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries is a long-standing practice. One can hardly argue against politicians in government wanting people whom they can trust blindly to occupy certain positions, especially in their private secretariats.
Regrettably, by time, this position has been increasingly abused. It is now clear that, rather than to ensure the highest level of trust possible, such appointments are made to curry favours, give unjustified ‘promotions’ – read handsome remuneration packages – to friends and, as more recent events have shown, even to serve as henchmen.
The exact number of persons of trust engaged by the government is not known although, in a report two years ago, the Venice Commission had said it was informed there were about 700 at the time.
The commission acknowledged there can be a legitimate need for ministers to benefit from the assistance of persons of trust in implementing their political programme. However, it rightly remarked that both the number of such appointees and their role should be limited.
In a guidance note issued late last year, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life acknowledged it is widely accepted that ministers have the right to staff their private secretariats with people who enjoy their trust. Nevertheless, he pointed out, appointments on trust have attracted controversy both because they are not limited to ministers’ secretariats and also due to the fact that they are considered as being in direct conflict with the constitution, because the Public Service Commission is effectively bypassed and ignored.
Indeed, it has emerged that among those engaged as persons of trust were a security guard, a maintenance officer, a crane and forklifter operator, a dog handler, gardeners and cleaners.
Former prime minister Joseph Muscat had defended this practice, saying he saw no perversion of the system. And for the head of the civil service, Mario Cutajar, engaging people through such a procedure is a cultural matter.
The standards commissioner observed that persons of trust have become an important part of public administration, adding that the Standards in Public Life Act recognises this and provides a mechanism through which many of them can be publicly held to account for their conduct.
This law demands that persons of trust observe the code of ethics for public employees. However, amendments now before parliament’s consideration of bills committee propose that persons of trust shall not be considered as public officers or public employees, implying they will not fall under the code of ethics governing public servants.
As things now stand, the government only seems to be perpetuating a situation which led to shady persons of trust doing their greedy and sleazy political master’s bidding
Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis acknowledged when he moved the bill that both the Venice Commission and Greco, the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption body, told the government such appointments should be better regulated both in their number and also in their nature.
In fact, the Venice Commission recommended both a constitutional amendment and law provisions, strictly limiting the appointment of persons of trust.
The government disagrees on the need for changes to the constitution and thinks that having the principal permanent secretary laying down the rules on roles and numbers would suffice.
It, therefore, remains to be seen how exactly the government is improving the manner in which persons of trust are engaged, how many should or can be hired and what they can do. Perhaps better sense will prevail when the parliamentary committee is considering the changes being proposed.
As things now stand, the government only seems to be perpetuating a situation which led to shady persons of trust doing their greedy and sleazy political master’s bidding.