Opposition insists tribunal decisions need to be enforced

Opposition justice spokesman Anglu Farrugia insisted yesterday that decisions by the Tribunal for the Investigation of Injustice needed to be implemented promptly by the government since delays constituted a fresh injustice.

He also insisted that a solution should be found in cases where the remedy decided by the tribunal could not be provided because of disagreement by the Public Service Commission.

The Labour MP was speaking during the debate on a motion, which renewed the term of the tribunal by another year. The motion was moved by Justice Minister Austin Gatt.

Dr Farrugia said this tribunal had been set up so that Labourites who suffered injustices under the Nationalist government in the years before the Office of the Ombudsman was set up could have redress.

Referring to complaints by the minister about the tribunal having decided too few cases since 1998, Dr Farrugia said the tribunal only had one judicial assistant who held regular sittings. Evidence took a long time to be heard. In cases involving discrimination in the granting of promotions against Labourites by Bank of Valletta, for example, sometimes one sitting was taken up solely to cross-examine one witness.

The Labour government had insisted that cases of alleged injustice should be heard by an impartial tribunal presided by a judge. This was in contrast to the system under the former PN government, which had appointed the commission against injustice.

Dr Farrugia said he was happy to see that the number of cases decided by the tribunal had picked up. Indeed, the tribunal was this year up to May expected to decide 137 cases. This would mean that the presiding judge would have decided more cases than the judges in the civil court. This had also to be seen in the context of the complexity of some of the cases.

What was noticeable, Dr Farrugia said, was that after the PN took office, documents needed by the tribunal were not found and people giving evidence suddenly claimed to be forgetting things, in contrast to the situation under the Labour government.

Furthermore, many people who had had their cases upheld had not been given the remedy the tribunal ordered, even when the remedy consisted of financial compensation.

The Labour Party had already promised that within a week of being returned to government it would give a remedy to people whose cases were justified but who were not given a remedy by the government.

He agreed there was a constitutional problem with regard to recommendations for promotions given by the tribunal since such promotions required the approval of the PSC and this was not always forthcoming. Both sides of the House needed to resolve this issue in the interests of justice.

His suggestion was that persons found by the tribunal to be deserving of a promotion should at least receive a salary or allowance which reflected what their salary would have been had they been promoted.

Many of the cases which were upheld, however, had nothing to do with the Public Service Commission and the remedy was still being awaited.

It was not good enough to renew the term of the tribunal. It had to be ensured that cases were not delayed unnecessarily by the government`s representatives. And the decisions of the tribunal needed to be implemented promptly because otherwise fresh injustices would be created.

Indeed it was unfair that heads of government departments had been officially told that they should not consider decisions by the tribunal as being final.

To have the decisions of the tribunal challenged in court was unfair and imposed a financial burden on the workers found to have already suffered an injustice, more so because court tariffs had been increased substantially.

Dr Farrugia observed that the Commission for the Investigation of Injustices had cost the government approximately Lm500,000 while the tribunal had awarded total compensation of Lm300,000, of which many thousands had still not been paid.

It had to be kept in mind that whereas the commission could award whatever compensation it wished, the compensation that could be awarded by the tribunal could not exceed Lm5,000.

Dr Farrugia said the cases upheld by the tribunal should be studied so that such injustices, committed by the PN government, would not be repeated.

There had been cases were a worker got six transfers in a week. Many Labourites were passed over for promotion or denied allowances given to others doing the same work. Some 300 Labourites had been forced to give up their case following threats made to them after the change of government in 1998. Among them were Maltacom workers who were told they would not be eligible for early retirement if they proceeded with their case.

Dr Farrugia said a Labour government would not be vindictive, but those who committed injustices would have to answer for their actions.

Winding up, Justice Minister Austin Gatt said no one could ever guarantee that a government would not make mistakes, despite its best efforts. One could see how the Ombudsman was taking decisions against the actions of the 1996 Labour government. The reality, however, was that most administrative decisions were not taken by ministers. That was why bodies of review were set up, and why decisions were taken against and in favour of both sides. All those who took decisions were liable to make mistakes and it was wrong for anyone to claim all decisions were politically motivated.

Dr Farrugia had said that within a week of being returned to government, the MLP would give a remedy to those who had had their case upheld but not been given a remedy. How would that happen? Would a Labour government violate the constitution by going against decisions of the Public Service Commission because the people involved were Labourites? Was this seriousness?

It was wrong for Dr Farrugia to imply that it was only Labourites who claimed to have suffered an injustice and that, therefore, upon a change of government, all Labourites would be given a remedy. Happily Malta today had an institution, the Ombudsman, which enjoyed the confidence of both sides of the House and heard cases moved by Labourites and Nationalists. One should not, therefore, say it would be up to politicians to redress injustices. That did nothing for the public perception of politicians.

Referring to judicial assistants, Dr Gatt said most judges had only one judicial assistant and the fact that the tribunal had a judicial assistant who was a full timer meant that it was receiving as much support as the courts.

Dr Gatt said decisions by the tribunal were challenged in the courts whenever they were seen as being ultra vires. It was unfair for this to be seen as constituting an unfair delaying tactic.

The motion was later approved unanimously.