The government has decided to launch an appeal against a judge’s decision that the Ombudsman had the authority in law to investigate complaints by officers of the Armed Forces of Malta over controversial promotions carried out inSeptember 2013, soon after Labour won the election.
Should people be surprised at this appeal? No. Governments, which have the considerable resources of the State behind them, almost invariably appeal a decision by the courts which goes against them. This is especially so in one as politically charged as this on which it instinctively knows it is vulnerable.
The longer the government can delay the case for redress by the injured AFM officers before the Ombudsman, the greater its hope that the political sting will be drawn. The fact that the Ombudsman himself is due to stand down shortly at the end of his tenure may also mean the government would not be averse to waiting to put forward an incumbent to the post who may be more malleable than Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino.
The case of the deeply-flawed promotions to the top posts in the AFM, which saw the commander and the deputy commander placed in positions where they had little honourable course but to resign, has left a bitter taste in the mouth. It will haunt this government until the next election and beyond.
In two fell swoops, a number of majors were promoted to lieutenant-colonel and lieutenant-colonels promoted to colonels, with one major, indeed, being appointed to be commander in the rank of brigadier.
Quite correctly, the Ombudsman, who had received legitimate complaints about the two extraordinary promotion exercises, had immediately asked for the relevant documentation from the Minister for Home Affairs and National Security to investigate the complaints. The court has fully supported that claim.
In its appeal to the judgment, the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security has argued that the complainants should follow the procedures laid down in the AFM regulations and submit them before the President. It has gone on to argue that the Ombudsman does not enjoy the required authority or jurisdiction to investigate the promotions “which carry with them an element of subjective trust”.
To which the Ombudsman has made the withering retort: “Whose ‘subjective trust’? 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 rightly prefers the kind of trust that is based on ability, integrity and military competence. Indeed, these are the meritocratic values this government pledged itself to introduce if it were elected.
This goes to the nub of the problem and exposes the government not only to the charges of hypocrisy, lack of accountability and the suspicion of malfeasance in the conduct of the promotion boards but also to covering up a process that was politically motivated and deeply flawed.
The AFM has never before in its long and distinguished history been subjected to the kind of promotion farrago which Malta witnessed in 2013.
It is in Malta’s democratic interests that the Ombudsman – impartial, objective, trusted – should be allowed to carry out a proper investigation into what occurred, for abuses of power to be exposed, injustices to be remedied and lessons to be learnt.