The reformed bureaucrat

Joseph Sammut, the first Ombudsman for Malta, ends his term in office this week. The institution was set up in 1995. His role as Ombudsman came at the end of a distinguished career in the civil service, spanning 52 years, which included being the head of the civil service and secretary to the Cabinet.

However, he says that his last job was the one that gave him the most satisfaction. Maybe Mick Jagger should be offered the job of Ombudsman to finish off his career.

Joking apart, I was naturally curious to know why the job was so satisfying, and since he was the first to fill the post in this country, his experiences and reflections are definitely worth noting.

The first thing I noticed when I called at the Ombudsman's Office was the refurbished lobby. It is bright, airy and welcoming. Besides, the artwork on the walls is Mr Sammut's work (he is a prolific artist). He is rightly proud of the refurbishment, which was done all over the building and not just the lobby.

"Our space is very restricted, but at least my team, who work very hard, have a pleasant environment," he told me.

I started by asking him why the Ombudsman's job had been the most satisfying. "The gratitude, in the form of letters or phone calls from people we have listened to, makes me feel that I have done something worthwhile.

"Sometimes people are desperate and have been banging their heads against brick walls, and cannot even get listened to. The Ombudsman's Office listens. We might not always have the solutions, but we do our best to help the ordinary citizen, who often does not have the resources to challenge authority.

"For those who at times have to confront the stone wall of a faceless public service, it is heartening to know that there is an institution with the integrity and courage to stand up and challenge issues that might seem insignificant to those in power, but are important to individual citizens," he said.

"After a lifetime as part of the bureaucracy, the last 10 years have given me the privilege of looking at the day-to-day humdrum operations of the public service from a distance, and in a detached and impartial manner.

"From this perch I have increasingly appreciated that citizens rightfully demand efficiency from the public service; that they are entitled to be treated with respect and to have their individual circumstance taken into account; and that they demand adequate and reasonable explanations to back any decisions, which affect them personally or whenever things go wrong.

"These concerns are crucial and fundamental to citizens in a just and fair society," said Mr Sammut.

Clearly there is a need to monitor regularly the operations of state bureaucracy and the Office of the Ombudsman is the institution that can tackle it best.

I asked him what he regarded as the institution's achievements. "I believe that the Office of the Ombudsman has achieved a great deal in its first decade. It provides an assurance to Maltese citizens that they can have recourse to the institution whenever they feel aggrieved by actions and/or omissions by public bodies.

"And the Ombudsman deals with their grievances about public administration in an impartial and efficient manner. Besides, the service is provided free of charge.

Throughout its ten years this Office enjoyed a strong measure of credibility in assisting citizens as well as government bodies and institutions to resolve differences, whenever problems arose.

"The Ombudsman process has been successful in addressing the consequences of breakdowns in the relationships between citizens and their government. And access to justice was achieved at less cost and in a more timely manner than by recourse to a judicial solution," Mr Sammut told me.

During his tenure over 11,600 people approached the Office of the Ombudsman for assistance. Of the 7,300 written complaints received, 76% fell within the Ombudsman's mandate. Over 3,500 of these cases were covered by a full report.

In the case of 2,034 justified complaints an appropriate remedy was put in place in accordance with the Ombudsman's recommendation for redress. Another 1,860 people were assisted without a formal investigation.

I asked the Ombudsman what he felt might damage the Ombudsman as an effective institution.

"If it is taken for granted with the result that the support and respect, which it deserves, might wane and the dignity of its status be undermined.

If the institution is politicised, including the process by which officeholders are appointed.

"If its functional responsibilities are duplicated. If recommendations arising from the Ombudsman's independent investigations are not acted upon, and if it is not ensured that the institution remains fully independent of the executive government."

I asked Mr Sammut whether he felt the institution of the Ombudsman was at risk.

"Except for the persistent failure by Government to recognise fully by deeds and not merely lip service the institution's official status, so far the risks have been avoided, which does not mean they should be overlooked," he said.

The Ombudsman has in the past pulled up politicians from both sides of the house for not giving his reports the attention they deserve. He told me that the only time an Ombudsman's report was referred to in Parliament was in April, when Minister George Pullicino spoke about a report on Mepa at an adjournment.

"The minister did not agree with all my findings, but I was delighted that at least politicians were finally taking note," he said.

I asked him whether any of the recommendations in that report had been acted upon. "Not to my knowledge," he said.

Mr Sammut has been accused of being partisan when he had complained to the House Business Committee. "Parliament is not doing its job in keeping the administration under continuous scrutiny." It was not being sufficiently effective in its response to some of his reports, for example when he had brought to light serious shortcomings of public bodies, like the army and Mepa.

However, he has never shied away from presenting the facts and has ensured the Ombudsman's Office is seen as having integrity.

I asked him whether besides the criticism after he had 'gone public' he has ever been put under any pressure. "I must say that throughout my term of office no member from either the government or the Opposition have ever attempted to influence me in any way.

"The Office of the Ombudsman has always been given adequate resources, and government departments and authorities have generally demonstrated a willingness to work with the Ombudsman for the benefit of citizens.

"This attitude is the key to building wider confidence in the institution. Citizens will not seek the Ombudsman unless the Ombudsman lends an ear to and follows up complaints and problems that are recognised to be genuine," Mr Sammut said.

Last November the Ombudsman told the House of Representatives' Business Committee that, since his term of office was coming to an end, it was time to think of his successor. In January he wrote to the Speaker with details of his research into procedures other countries follow for Ombudsman appointments.

He suggested that there should be a call for applications and he supplied the terms of reference and criteria for that purpose. But nothing materialised. I asked him what would happen now since his successor has not been appointed.

"I could be asked to stay on but, as far as I am concerned, my mission has been accomplished. I have made it clear, by writing to the Speaker to inform him that I do not intend to stay on after my term ends.

"It is not in the interest of the institution that I continue beyond my ten-year term," he told me. "Besides, I don't intend to become an institution myself," he jokingly added.

To mark the end of his career Mr Sammut has dedicated a book, of his watercolours, including the rights, to the Dar tal-Providenza.

All the paintings have been sold, raising Lm6,350, and sales of the book are expected to raise another Lm4,000.