The Ombudsman has asked the Appeals Court for an urgent ruling on the army complaints dispute with the government.
In an application filed on Wednesday, the Ombudsman, Joseph Said Pullicino, argued that army officers should not have to wait longer to be able to seek redress.
“It should be obvious that it is not in the public interest that citizens are not given a hearing due to a dispute between State organs,” the Ombudsman said.
The Home Affairs Ministry has one week to submit its reaction.
The issue dates to September 2013, when a number of army officers filed a complaint over a series of controversial promotions made just months after the Labour Party was elected to government.
It should be obvious: it is not in the public interest that citizens are not given a hearing due to a dispute between State organs
They claimed that officers with lower qualifications and seniority had been unfairly promoted at their expense. The Ombudsman was, however, unable to investigate, as the government refused to collaborate, arguing he had no jurisdiction over such matters.
The dispute escalated to the point that Dr Said Pullicino decided to take the government to court. Last month, a judge ordered the Home Affairs Ministry to grant the Ombudsman access to all documentation.
The ministry appealed saying the Ombudsman did not have absolute discretion to say whether all remedies had been exhausted, the only circumstance in which, according to the government’s interpretation of the law, he would have had the right to investigate the complaints.
Ombudsman: government ignored order on jurisdiction
The government also noted that the army’s responsibilities were so sensitive to the Maltese State that promotions to high posts did not lend themselves to scrutiny by third parties. It reiterated its stance that the officers should follow the procedure set in the Armed Forces Act and complain to the President.
In his reply to the government’s appeal, Dr Said Pullicino noted that was “no remedy at all”. If the procedure mentioned by the government had to be followed, the President would have to decide on the minister’s advice, in line with the Constitution, which laid down that the Head of State must act on the recommendation of the Cabinet, he said.
The Ombudsman also noted that the government had ignored a General Order specifically intended to clarify his jurisdiction in such cases and so he had every right to exercise his discretion over this case.
The Sunday Times of Malta has reported that the aggrieved officers were becoming increasingly concerned that time was running out.
Sources quoted by the newspaper said that the government’s challenge would only serve to prolong the dispute further.
With the Ombudsman’s term of office set to expire next March, this could spell the end of their hope for a fair solution, fearing that his successor might not be so keen to follow in Dr Said Pullicino’s footsteps, they said.