The leading article ‘Hindering the quest for the truth’ (March 7) would have us believe that the government’s stand on whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate complaints by Armed Forces of Malta officers is an attempt to diminish the power of the office and undermine the institution.

On several occasions, the Times of Malta sought to extol the virtues of this institution and portray Ombudsman Joe Said Pullicino as a knight in shining armour.

Such an attitude has been based on an uncritical evaluation of the performance of this institution, with no objective criteria to judge the true, proper and real extent of its contribution to uphold the right of citizens to good public administration.

I therefore believe Times of Malta is out of touch with what happened in this institution over these last few years.

Having witnessed the operations of the Maltese Ombudsman institution at very close quarters for quite some time, I can assure you that the string of episodes that eroded the people’s trust in this office and undermined this institution were largely of its own making. I would like to flag just a few of these actions to show how the institution itself chose to dent its own credibility in recent years.

It will be no easy task to restore confidence and credibility in the Maltese Ombudsman institution

Guided by the provision in the Ombudsman Act that “the office of Ombudsman shall be incompatible with the exercise of any professional, banking, commercial or trade union activity or other activity for profit or reward”, in November 2012, the Speaker of the House of Representatives took an unprecedented step when he decided to ask the Ombudsman to refrain from carrying out any further arbitration work with the Malta Arbitration Centre.

At the time, the Ombudsman admitted that, since his nomination in December 2005, he had served as arbitrator in no fewer than eight cases.

Only a few weeks later, on December 14, 2012, the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which is presided by the President of Malta, publicly drew Said Pullicino’s attention that the judiciary fell outside his jurisdiction and that, by his declarations in a letter on the commission, the Chief Justice and Judge Carmelo Farrugia Sacco he was breaking the law.

As if this were not enough, Said Pullicino is facing criminal libel proceedings instituted by Farrugia Sacco regarding the contents of this letter.

The issue then arises: can an Ombudsman who is politely stopped by the Speaker from extracurricular assignments that are incompatible with his office, who is publicly chided by the Commission for the Administration of Justice for comments that are against the law and who is facing criminal libel proceedings inspire any confidence among the people at large?

In the circumstances, I find it hard to subscribe to the claim which was made by Times of Malta that the government’s stand on the extent of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction gnaws at the people’s trust of this institution.

An interesting insight into the Ombudsman’s endeavours and the work rate recorded emerges from a report, dated October 2012, that had been tabled in the House of Representatives.

From this unpublicised operations review of the Office of the Ombudsman, it emerges that although the Ombudsman’s Charter lays down that, on average, cases submitted should be concluded within 50 to 60 working days, the average number of days taken to conclude complaints was 138 in 2008, 153 in 2009, 156 in 2010 and 117 in 2011.

By sheer coincidence, soon after reference was made to this dismal performance during a discussion by the House Business Committee on the budget of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Charter vanished from the website of the office and has been missing ever since.

Put bluntly, an institution that is meant to oversee timely responses to the people’s needs by the public administration has now simply blotted out its own commitment to service delivery.

I could easily go on and mention several other instances of the institution’s own making that dented its credibility and undermined its foundations in recent years but prefer to stop lest I too will be accused of undermining the institution.

Among all this gloom, there is a silver lining. Said Pullicino has now commenced the last lap of his office. For his successor, it will be no easy task to restore confidence and credibility in the Maltese Ombudsman institution. However, with a true and genuine interest in the people’s right to good administration backed by a solid commitment to visibility, there should be no reason why the Office of the Ombudsman should not again rise high in the country’s institutional trust barometer.

Michael Sant is a former manager, corporate affairs, at the Office of the Ombudsman.

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.