Up with transparency and accountability

What is it about the governance of this country that make transparency and accountability such difficult concepts to adopt? The latest spat between the NGO Commissioner and the ministries of justice and the family and that of foreign affairs over the awarding of funds to voluntary organisations from the overseas development budget is the latest example of lack of transparency.

When the office of the Voluntary Organisations Commissioner was established, The Times welcomed it as an important step forward in regularising the position of the many NGOs that had sprung up. While many were doing good charitable and voluntary work in the fields of the environment, heritage and social services and were totally above board, there were many others that had no statutes, published no accounts and appeared to be answerable to nobody but themselves. The potential for abuse was rife.

There was undoubtedly a need to bring some order into this important area of civil society.

The Voluntary Organisations Commissioner, a man both of probity and intellect, has from very early on in his tenure found himself frustrated in the performance of his duties by a number of powerful institutions that felt unable, for whatever reason, to comply with the letter of the NGO Act.

The prime cause of friction has arisen over the position of the enrolment of Church organisations. For reasons unknown, Church NGOs have refused to regularise their position and this has given rise to speculation about the reasons for their reluctance to comply with the law, which is neither helpful to the Church’s many charitable bodies nor to the administration of the Act.

It means that such organisations are unable, without breaking the law, to make public collections without the Police Commissioner’s permission, nor can they receive grants or enter into cooperation contracts with the government, nor avail themselves of the support of the office of the NGO Commissioner or be a beneficiary of the policies that government entities are bound to provide in favour of enrolled NGOs.

Despite this, though, the law provides a get-out clause. Church NGOs and, remarkably, individuals may be granted a ministerial exemption to benefit from state donations even though they are not enrolled with the NGO Commissioner. Twenty-eight organisations and individuals have just been awarded funds from Malta’s annual (tiny) overseas development aid budget.

Eleven of the beneficiaries – seven organisations and four individuals – are not enrolled with the NGO Commissioner. Apparently, newly-promoted Justice and Family Minister Chris Said granted the seven organisations exemption from the law but had failed to inform the Commissioner of this.

As to the four individuals, no public explanation has been forthcoming from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for their selection as beneficiaries of public funds voted for overseas aid.

This episode has again highlighted the unsatisfactory nature of the prevailing position under the law. At heart, this is an issue about transparency and accountability. Why should any voluntary organisation not be prepared to abide by the rules for NGOs laid down under the law?

Why should individuals be granted government funding when they could register as a charity or a foundation and be above board? Above all, why should a government that has introduced legislation to regulate NGOs feel it necessary to make a raft of exceptions exempting bodies from compliance with the law? This undermines the law and is good neither for government nor the Church.