When Carmelo Abela was appointed home affairs minister after the sacking of Manuel Mallia last December in the wake of a shooting incident involving his driver, there were hopes that a standoff over whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate complaints by army officers would thaw.

However, the Ombudsman’s hopes were dashed in no time and he has now taken both the ministry and its permanent secretary to court, complaining that his office is being hindered from looking into complaints filed by army officers on promotions, salaries and pension rights.

The case does not seem to have triggered any particular national interest, probably because of the legalities involved, but when such an institution as the Ombudsman has to resort to court to settle a dispute with the government, the country ought to become aware of the implications of the rift.

To those who up to now are being denied the opportunity of having their case heard by the Ombudsman, and to independent observers, the ministry’s attitude may well be considered as an attempt to undermine the authority of the Ombudsman’s office. The Nationalist Opposition holds the same view, arguing it is shameful that the minister has not managed to get rid of the arrogance exhibited by his predecessor.

Pique, sheer arrogance and an attempt to delay the quest for the truth combine to confirm the general feeling of political heavy- handedness. It is now for the court to decide ­– hopefully with some urgency – the merits of the case, which revolves around a number of controversial promotions awarded in 2013.

Army officers are being told they first have to exhaust all avenues to seek redress before resorting to the Ombudsman and that complaints must go through the commander, who could then refer their case to the President. But the Ombudsman says that under the previous administration an agreement had been reached under which AFM officers could seek redress from his office if they so opted. This agreement had been communicated to the officers in November 2011. The Ombudsman Act also authorised the Ombudsman to take on complaints from army officers.

Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino, a former chief justice, holds that the ministry’s objections are based on largely irrelevant reasons. Because of the dispute, the Ombudsman is unable to carry on with his investigation into the promotions. He is also asking the court to declare the permanent secretary guilty of contempt of court for refusing to hand over the requested documentation.

It is an unseemly clash that should not have arisen. The fact that the ministry appears intent on building a stone wall between the army officers and the Ombudsman’s office cannot but raise doubts as to the real intentions behind the refusal to hand over the documents for the investigation to be continued.

The government may deny it is attempting to undermine the office of the Ombudsman but that is exactly how its attitude towards the office is being interpreted. In any case, it surely is not helping the Ombudsman to seek the truth.

Being the champion of the citizens’ rights, the Ombudsman does well to resist any government’s attempt to diminish its powers. His office is autonomous, answerable only to Parliament and “holds the government accountable to the people for its actions”.

A government that truly believes in citizens’ rights ought to have avoided creating such a problem for the Ombudsman and for the people seeking redress.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.