Government accused of making it difficult for ombudsman to work

Opposition justice spokesman Anglu Farrugia said yesterday the government was being arrogant in its criticism of the Ombudsman, Mr Joe Sammut, because he was saying the truth.

Speaking in parliament during the debate on the Ombudsman, Dr Farrugia said it was clear the government was fed up with Mr Sammut and the only thing which had remained for the prime minister to do in his strong criticism earlier in the sitting was to ask Mr Sammut to resign.

Dr Farrugia said he did not always agree with the Ombudsman and he had written to him several times but, in view of such a personal attack by the prime minister, had he been the Ombudsman, he would have resigned.

The Ombudsman was being attacked for having been critical of the government but no such criticism had been made against the Attorney General when he was critical of another institution - the courts. Indeed, the government had supported the Attorney General.

Dr Fenech Adami had felt the need to attack the Ombudsman for using the phrase "friends of friends," yet the Ombudsman used this phrase because it was the truth.

One of the cases mentioned by the Ombudsman was that the commander of the Armed Forces of Malta had not taken up his recommendations for certain personnel to be awarded promotions unfairly denied to them.

It was well known that those who went to ministers and promised them their vote were promoted. Promotions were given en masse at the AFM, with the brigadier inventing criteria on which to give promotions. But some of those promoted had a disastrous record and had even undergone disciplinary proceedings.

Instead of attacking the Ombudsman, the prime minister should have acted to prevent further injustice.

It was also true that at the Lands Department there were cases where people were compensated for land taken from them while others were not.

Giving an example, he said that in Gharghur there was land consisting of three plots belonging to three persons in the same family, two supporting the Nationalist Party. The PN supporters had received compensation but the one who did not was still waiting.

Turning to the Tarcisio Mifsud case, to whom the Ombudsman had recommended compensation of Lm1,500, Dr Farrugia said that according to (Justice Minister) Dr Austin Gatt, the compensation was not being given because Mr Mifsud had only suffered a slight injury whereas Richard Cachia Caruana was grievously injured.

The Ombudsman had said that although the courts had decided Mr Mifsud's injury to be slight, he had actually suffered a permanent disability of about 15 per cent. Did the prime minister know more than the health specialist?

How could the prime minister defend the person who attacked Mr Mifsud, saying he had been drunk? And how did he know?

In Mr Cachia Caruana's case, apart from the Lm30,000 given by the government, Mr Cachia Caruana also filed for damages before the civil court.

Was this not a case of "friends of friends". Why had the prime minister felt offended? The Ombudsman had been right to say that this was too much and exceeded all limits.

At Air Malta, one was not employed unless he was a Nationalist referred by a Nationalist minister. This was what the Ombudsman wanted to say when he said that Air Malta employed summer workers on the basis of political considerations.

Instead of attacking the Ombudsman, the prime minister should have gone to parliament to discuss the situation, as the Ombudsman had spoken the truth.

The Ombudsman had spilled the beans because he was fed up of seeing such injustice continuing.

Following the attacks being made by the government, he did not know how the Ombudsman could be in a position to carry out his duties freely.

The Ombudsman should be allowed to work with a free hand. What he had said in the interview had been previously revealed in reports which were public. So why was the prime minister offended?

The Ombudsman had given an explanation on the basis of the facts before him and for doing so he was called arrogant.

Yet, it was the people who would not listen who were arrogant.

Did anyone think that complaints about the Malta Environment and Planning Authority regarding lack of enforcement were not justified? Was there any problem in saying this? For example, because Caqnu was strong, he got what he wanted. The Ombudsman had said that those who knew how to cheat the system were getting away with it.

Concluding, Dr Farrugia said the government had brought the Ombudsman to a position where it would be difficult for him to continue serving the country.

The debate continues today.

The House Business Committee, which met before the sitting started, decided that the debate would continue for up to five sittings, with opposition leader Alfred Sant concluding it.