Ombudsman should never be a Super Judge or Super Minister

The Ombudsman's reports and recommendations, and those by commissioners, should not be given executive effect, the Ombudsman, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, said on his proposals to strengthen administrative audit.

He was referring to the parliamentary Ombudsman, the University Ombudsman under the Education Act, the audit officer under the Development Planning Act, the Commissioner for Children under the Commissioner for Children Act and the police board under the Police Act. In addition to these sectoral ombudsmen, Parliament has also appointed a Data Protection Commissioner under the Data Protection Act.

Essentially, the Ombudsman - and the commissioners - should neither be given, nor assume, the role of "a Super Judge or a Super Minister", he said. Their task is to persuade through convincing arguments that any maladministration and injustice identified as such should be remedied.

"The Ombudsman should be a catalyst for good administrative practice, tendering good advice and recommending appropriate remedies that bear the hallmark of his authority."

There are, however, cases that often have a wider impact than the particular complaint under investigation, which, ultimately, require a political decision on whether an identified injustice should be rectified and how, he added. The law as it stands today already provides that such cases can be brought to the attention of the House of Representatives by the Ombudsman.

The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman is proposing for consideration legislative amendments aimed at achieving the same result with reference to the various commissions for administrative investigation extant in Malta's Statute Book and any other commission that may be appointed.

One of the main aims of the proposed amendments, the Ombudsman said, is to create an effective audit mechanism of administrative actions by giving substance to the principle of accountability. The government is proposing legislation for the empowerment of the Ombudsman in coordinating all administrative complaints in the public service as a whole.

The Ombudsman and sectoral commissioners, as officers of Parliament, should be accountable to the House.

They should, therefore, also have an effective means of bringing the investigations and recommendations that have not been accepted and implemented by the administration to the attention of Parliament for its active consideration.

In such cases, a decision binding on the public administration should be taken by Parliament through its committees, where necessary after a public and transparent process to ensure that the correctness of public administration is subjected to the test and ultimate sanction of public opinion, the Ombudsman maintained.

He proposed that only the parliamentary Ombudsman would have the right to bring deserving cases to the attention of the House.

Sectoral commissioners would be able to propose deserving cases they felt should be accorded this ultimate, exceptional remedy, he said.

The parliamentary Ombudsman should, therefore, remain the sole and ultimate interlocutor of the House in such proceedings.

In recent consultations with the Prime Minister, the Ombudsman has proposed ways to streamline and standardise sectoral ombudsmen, to iron out difficulties in the implementation of Ombudsman recommendations and to permit him to interface with sectoral ombudsmen and the Data Protection Commissioner without infringing on their respective independence.