The Constitution prohibits distinction, exclusion or preference in favour or against any person in respect to his recruitment to a public office by reason of his political opinion. As a general rule employment in the public service is subject to merit and is required to be preceded by a call for applications with specific and very limited exceptions, as in the case of the appointment of permanent secretaries, that is vested in the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.
In constitutional terms the recruitment of public officers solely on the basis of trust is irregular even in the case of ministerial secretariats. Yet, it has been a longstanding practice to recruit political appointees in ministerial secretariats directly on the basis of trust, which is widely considered as justifiable to give ministers a sense of repose.
However, the engagement of persons on the basis of trust has been extended to other positions in the public service outside ministerial secretariats. This practice was officially introduced by means of a circular issued by the Office of the Prime Minister during the previous Nationalist administration, which permits the engagement of persons in the public service on a ‘person of trust’ basis, supposedly in exceptional cases.
Quite rightly the Public Service Commission has considered this form of employment to be unconstitutional since it does not conform to the established procedures that regulate employment in the public service. Through this mechanism the competitive exercise under the guidance of the commission as required by the Constitution is eliminated.
Both the Nationalist and Labour governments have resorted to this unconstitutional practice opening a possibility for employment in the public service of persons who do not possess the required competencies at the expense of appropriately qualified, experienced and skilled individuals.
A person who may have helped one political party or another or a candidate within a party could be rewarded by ajob for himself or a family member, which is precisely what the Constitution prohibits.
Engagements on a ‘person of trust’ basis are normally on definite contracts, with no entitlement to permanent employment. This may to a certain extent mitigate the irregularity of such appointments in constitutional terms, since those engaged are not supposed to be a permanent burden on the state coffers.
However, experience has shown that the irregularity of appointments in positions of trust could be compounded even further by being transformed into fully fledged public service posts and positions without reference to the Public Service Commission.
The irregularity of appointments to positions of trust could be compounded even further by being transformed into fully-fledged public service posts
Besides, members of ministerial secretariats who were employed from outside the public service have been retained in employment after their respective minister ceased to form part of the government, although they should have not continued to serve in the public service according to the Guidelines on the Engagement of Staff for Ministers’ Secretariats.
An example of an injustice created by these political appointments can be seen from a petition that was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman by a public officer with long years in the public service who possesses a master’s degree in training and human resource management.
This officer contended that he was precluded from applying for the post of procurement officer in the Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity because it was awarded to someone on a ‘person of trust’ basis. This employment was in fact given to an 18-year-old lad who was previously employed from outside the public service in the position of secretariat officer within the Parliamentary Secretariat for the Elderly.
The ministry in question had tried to justify the award of this position of trust by saying that this had become necessary after serious shortcomings were noted by the Auditor General. However, no information was given in reply to a parlamentary question regarding the qualifications and experience of the individual concerned.
The Minister had furthermore confirmed that a salary in scale 7 had been given to this 18-year-old in his post of procurement officer which ranges between €22,044 and €25,231 per annum. Quite illogically, this salary exceeds that paid to the occupant of the superior grade of senior procurement officer by about €3,000 per annum and is equivalent to that paid to the procurement manager.
There was no justification to give the post of procurement officer on a position of trust basis when both posts of procurement manager and senior procurement officer with the same ministry were filled through a call for applications.
It is evident that the difference in the recruitment process was only intended to bypass the provisions of the Constitution on the appointment of public officers to the detriment of suitably qualified potential applicants.
Strangely enough, the petition filed with the Ombudsman by the public officer who was denied the opportunity to apply for the post was rejected in a decision given on April 21, 2015.
This rejection contrasts sharply with the concern expressed at that time by the Ombudsman himself who considered the widening of the definition of persons of trust as a possible excuse to avoid established procedures that regulate employment in the civil service with resultant appointments that might not be in line with the law.
A stench of political favouritism and cronyism surrounds the contracting of people in positions of trust without a call for applications. Never has the the old adage, “It’s not what you know, but who you know”, been so much felt in the Maltese public service.
The number of staff given positions of trust with the secretariat of the Prime Minister alone has exceeded the number provided for by the guidelines by more than three times.
Ironically enough this form of employment has exploded under the present Labour government that was elected on the platform of meritocracy, equal opportunities and transparency. What makes the situation more worrysome is that this mechanism of employment is considered to be unconstitutional.
Denis Tanti is a former assistant director (industrial and employment relations) in the Ministry of Health.