It would be an exaggeration to attribute, as some critics do, Joseph Muscat’s huge electoral victory in 2013 to his pledge that under a Labour government appointments would be based on meritocracy. Bear in mind politicians’ promises, especially during election campaigns, need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Still, meritocracy, or Dr Muscat’s idea of it, was prominent in Labour’s electioneering.

The meritocracy bubble was burst just days after Labour was returned to power. People who openly gave a helping hand to Labour during the election campaign, like by appearing on billboards, were engaged by government entities. Long-serving civil servants, impeccable in their jobs, were replaced by individuals whose main – if not sole – qualification was their political allegiance and connections. Quite a few – including a dog handler – were recruited on a position-of-trust basis, which is another way of employinganybody you like without having to follow the usual procedure.

A glaring example of how meritocracy was thrown out of the window were the controversial promotions at the Armed Forces of Malta in September 2013. In two fell swoops, a number of majors were promoted to lieutenant colonels and lieutenant colonels given the rank of colonels, one of them being appointed AFM commander soon after.

In its 2013 manifesto Labour pledged to ensure meritocracy and transparency within the AFM. Judging by the outcome of a court case just decided by Mr Justice Wenzu Mintoff that does not seem to be happening. Indeed, a reading of the well-studied judgment gives a very good insight into the government’s idea of meritocracy, transparency and governance.

The judge ruled the Ombudsman had the authority to investigate complaints by army officers over promotions. The government thought otherwise and raised every legal argument imaginable to stop the Ombudsman from ensuring everything was above board. The Home Affairs Ministry had already refused to pass on to the Ombudsman documentation related to the promotions. Is that the sort of transparency Labour pledged in its manifesto?

The government argued that neither the Ombudsman nor the court had the jurisdiction to review appointments and promotions of army officers, which carried with them an element of trust.

This “subjective trust” statement worried the Ombudsman who rightly retorted: “Whose subjective trust? The government’s? The executive’s? And if that were the case, what would happen if, whatever the reason, such trust is lost? And what happens when there is a change in government that would want to appoint people it trusts? Should the incumbents be removed from office or be forced to step down?” Rather than subjective trust, the Ombudsman prefers the kind of trust that is based on one’s abilities, competence, integrity, honesty and independence.

Unfortunately, Labour’s track record in government has shown one is trusted according to one’s contribution to the party. Meritocracy at its worst. The anti-thesis of good governance.

The government’s legal argument brought forward in this case, that the Ombudsman and the court had no right to review its decisions, even goes against the rule of law. As noted in the judgment itself, former UN general secretary Kofi Annan had described as “a principle of governance in which all persons institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards”.