Ombudsman Joseph Sammut yesterday stressed that local councils and the government had a duty to keep roads in Malta hazard free.

Presenting the media with a report, which was later tabled in parliament, on the responsibility of public authorities for the upkeep and maintenance of roads, he said he hoped parliament would discuss this report rather than ignore it, as it had ignored his other reports on pending cases.

Mr Sammut said the authorities appeared hesitant to assume responsibility for damage for fear of creating a precedent and opening the floodgates.

Government plans for an extensive road upgrading and rehabilitation programme in the years ahead were well known. But this would entail considerable financial resources and would need to be phased over a number of years.

In the meantime, urgent attention should be given to an intensive and coordinated first aid road maintenance and repair programme to remove dangerous traffic traps and other hazards in main, secondary and other roads.

At the same time, the authorities concerned should agree to accept both moral and legal responsibility for traffic accidents caused by such hazards.

The report Mr Sammut presented to parliament centres on the case of two men driving a Land Rover along the road leading from Siggiewi to Dar tal-Providenza on the night of December 1, 2001. They took a turn into a secondary road and their vehicle fell into a wide open water culvert about three metres deep.

"There was no light or other visible warning sign indicating the hazard.

"Nor was there any effective protective barrier or a visible kerb around the huge hole immediately at the corner of the secondary and main road.

"Given this complete disregard of any warning or protective measure, after sunset this culvert obviously constituted a menace not only for vehicles but also for pedestrians since the area was in darkness."

The Land Rover sustained extensive damage estimated at Lm1,230 and had to be lifted out of the culvert by a crane. Luckily the driver and his passenger were not hurt.

The complainant took pictures of the accident and the police were also called to the scene. In January, the owner wrote to the Siggiewi mayor holding the council responsible for the accident and claiming compensation. But as by May 27, 2002, no reply had been forthcoming, the owner referred the case to the ombudsman who urged the council to reply to the complainant's representations.

The council passed the case on to its legal adviser who, on June 5, 2002, told the ombudsman he was disclaiming any responsibility on behalf of the council.

Last November, the ombudsman sent a report on his findings to the council, upholding the complaint that had been raised by the owner of the Land Rover.

He concluded that the council could not divest itself of responsibility at law for ensuring that the danger be removed or minimised. His report recommended that the council pays compensation for damages sustained by the complainant against the production of the relative fiscal receipts.

But the council, through its lawyer, disagreed with the ombudsman's opinion and refused to award the recommended compensation.

In December, the ombudsman confirmed his opinion but the council maintained its position and in January he sent copies of his report and other relevant documents to the Minister for Local Councils and in March to the Prime Minister.

The Siggiewi mayor on March 20 wrote to say that the matter had been discussed by the council and it resolved that, for the reasons given by its lawyer, the complaint was not justified.

Mr Sammut said he considered this episode to be a classic case of an attempt to evade administrative responsibility by the use of clever legal arguments. Apart from the council's failure to treat the complainant's representations properly, the arguments brought forward by its legal adviser were flawed and demonstrated ignorance of the functions and role of the ombudsman institution.

The ombudsman's function is to investigate whether an administrative act or omission appears to have been contrary to law and make recommendations as he thinks fit.

Councils had the responsibility to provide for the upkeep and maintenance of, or improvements in, any street or footpath, not being privately owned. This clearly meant that the responsibilities of a local council were not limited merely to the patching up of potholes, resurfacing and street cleaning but also included the removal of any existing danger or hazardous spots as a matter of priority.

He said the principles of good administrative behaviour by public bodies and accountability demanded that whoever caused detriment to citizens assumed responsibility for one's actions and omissions.

"In cases of justified grievances which merit redress, it is unacceptable that public bodies resort to old-fashioned administrative concepts and invoke legalisms to camouflage their deficiencies and their refusal to accept liability for their inaction.

"This mentality is outdated; it is wrong and it harms the citizen's right to positive forms of public administration," Mr Sammut said.