The Ombudsman’s Office and the government are on collision course over which entity has the jurisdiction to look into complaints filed by army officers, with both sides expressing diametrically opposed views.
While Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia on Friday said that by law the Ombudsman had no right to probe such grievances, the Ombudsman’s Office is insisting it has every right to do so.
In a detailed statement Ombudsman and former chief justice Joseph Said Pullicino vowed to continue investigating such complaints, citing an agreement reached with the Armed Forces on November 11, 2011.
However, he noted that the Armed Forces and the competent authorities were resisting calls to submit their actions to scrutiny whenever his office investigated complaints filed by army officers.
The controversy was triggered during a House Business Committee which debated a request, filed by Opposition MP Jason Azzopardi, for the Ombudsman to probe the methodology used by an army complaints board created last year.
The request was turned down by the government with the Home Affairs Minister arguing that the Ombudsman was not legally permitted to look into complaints involving army officers.
Complaints received by the Ombudsman will continue to be investigated according to existing legislation
Dr Mallia said his opinion was consistent with a previous ruling by the Ombudsman’s Office. He also referred to Article 160 of the Armed Forces Act, which states complaints must go through the army commander, who may then refer the case to the President. However, Dr Said Pullicino noted that the minister was basing his case on a letter signed by an officer within the Ombudsman’s Office dating back to October 16, 2003. This officer had declined to investigate a complaint made by an army office in respect of a promotion.
The Ombudsman noted that he had already informed the armed forces that he considered this particular decision to be “manifestly mistaken” on the grounds that it denied the right army officers enjoyed under the Ombudsman Act to seek recourse from his office.
It was also pointed out that the Ombudsman Act had been enacted 25 years after the Armed Forces Act, which meant the 2003 decision “ignored the basic and elementary legal principle that a specific law prevails over one of a general nature that preceded it”.
The Ombudsman said that under the previous administration he had discussed the matter with then President George Abela, the Office of the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, and then army commander Brigadier Martin Xuereb.
He noted that this agreement stipulated that if an army officer opted to avail himself of the AFM Act, he would be considered to have renounced his right to seek redress from the Ombudsman.
“On the other hand, the officer could choose to submit his complaint in the first place to the Ombudsman while retaining the right to have his complaint referred to the President, in case he was not satisfied with the Ombudsman’s decision,” the Ombudsman said.
The Ombudsman said that the army, as well as the previous administration, had acted upon several of his rulings following this agreement.
“For these reasons the complaints received by the Ombudsman will continue to be investigated according to existing legislation and practices and in conformity with a law, which safeguards citizens’ rights to a transparent and accountable administration,” Dr Said Pullicino said.
The Ombudsman said that apart from corresponding with the Home Affairs Ministry, he had kept in touch with President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca and expressed his wish for reason to prevail to safeguard citizens’ rights.