Devious commissions, doors and dogs

In June 2005, following a meeting with the Prime Minister, I received a communication from his Office which inter alia stated:

Naturally, every complaint is important and we will try to address the individual cases that have been brought to our attention. This does not necessarily mean that we will solve them - it means that we will assess each case and respond appropriately.

The point you raise about institutions that are set up to address complaints is an important and fundamental one. Today, we have in Malta a number of institutions that were set up precisely to address complaints and allegations made by individual citizens. Apart from the law courts, we have the Ombudsman, the Commission for Injustice, the Commission against Corruption, the Public Service Commission and a host of other independent tribunals.

All well and good, but I have been dealing with a good number of government organisations and authorities for over 10 years in an attempt to resolve one single serious complaint and to date the administration has failed to assess the case and much less respond appropriately.

In the case of the independent institutions the situation is of graver import.

The Commission for the Administration of Justice informs me, in reply to my complaints regarding what I hold to be the repeated, deliberate maladministration of justice in our courts, that it did not have the competence to comment on the sentences awarded.

I did, even initially, draw the commission's attention to the fact that my complaints regarded the unacceptable and unorthodox procedures adopted during court sittings and not the sentences awarded, no matter how incomprehensible such sentences could be.

I had a great number of meetings with the secretary of the commission but I never managed to meet the commission, despite repeated requests. The commission only responded through the secretary with the following devious reply: ...it does not seem necessary to pursue the matter any further.

Even the Ombudsman, informed me on April 2, 1996, that:

I assure you that this Office has been doing its utmost to ensure that your case is given fair and proper treatment. The fact that the case is now before the Development Control Commission is ample proof of the effectiveness of our intervention.

By December 30, 1997, the Ombudsman reported:

He advised the police to reconsider their decision on the refusal of the assistance as requested by the Planning Authority to enforce the DCC's decision. The Ombudsman claimed that the advice of the Attorney General was flawed as he (the AG) had been misinformed on the nature of the case.

In April 1998 the Ombudsman seemed to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of his Office when he wrote:

Although Mr Chetcuti will go on pressing for action, I am closing his case as no further effective action is indicated on the part of my Office.

Nonetheless, on February 18, 1999, the Ombudsman again attempted to find a solution when he had drawn the attention of the Health Authorities to the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Police Laws regarding the power of the courts to withdraw the licence in case of repeated offences.

This recommendation was acted on by the health authorities but, through the censurable efforts of the police, etc., and the unorthodox court proceedings, the directive failed to take effect. The Ombudsman's directives were somehow nullified again.

(It is to be noted that this case was one of those referred to the Commission for the Administration of Justice described above).

Years later, on May 18, 2001, I was informed that the Office of the Ombudsman was not prepared to involve itself any further in my futile attempts to enlist the Ombudsman's help, ignoring his advice that (I was) knocking on the wrong door. Now, during November 2005 correspondence appeared in the press drawing attention to illegal development taking place on a site which was the subject of a MEPA Enforcement Notice issued in August 1996. The MEPA PRO responded by misquoting from an Audit report dated May 2005. My response in the Press drawing attention to this serious abuse was completely ignored.

Having failed to receive any response from any quarter, in late January 2006, I reported this arrogant treatment to the Ombudsman.

Since then I have not yet been informed whether the Ombudsman is investigating anything. But in a meeting held with the Ombudsman last Friday week, he expressed his serious doubts as to whether his Office could be instrumental to provide some positive response from the authorities. For a change, the present Ombudsman drew my attention that I could be barking up the wrong tree.

Perhaps the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic will find the time to read this.