During last December’s all-night debate in Parliament about the transfer of properties to the Sadeen Group for the setting up of a new university in the south, rebel MP Marlene Farrugia rightly questioned why negotiations with the Jordanian company had been conducted directly by the Office of the Prime Minister. What had become of the institutions, she pointedly asked.
One institution she may have been referring to has now made its presence well and truly felt. The National Commission for Further and Higher Education has just announced its decision on the application by Sadeen to establish an ‘American University of Malta’ in Marsascala and Cospicua.
After what the commission’s chairman, Martin Scicluna, described as a “rigorous educational and financial due diligence process”, it has offered Sadeen a licence to operate a university – an upgrade from its current status as institute — so long as it agrees to adhere to 16 stringent educational and financial conditions.
By laying down those strict conditions, the commission has shown itself to be far from accommodating, as some feared it might be.
That fear may have been justified at first, given the long political shadow cast over the commission’s work. The government had loudly trumpeted the undoubted benefits for the region and the country from having a university in Marsascala, using this as justification for granting Sadeen a large tract of ODZ land at Żonqor Point for the purpose.
The university was a fait accompli, giving the government a lot to lose politically should it fail to materialise. The Prime Minister even made it a point to use the term ‘university’ despite the fact it is a breach of the rules to advertise it as such.
The concerns over whether the commission would live up to its mission of fostering “excellence in further and higher education” – partly by making sure the quality standards expected of a university would be met – may also have been justified by the recent erosion of faith in other institutions, such as the police, armed forces, planning authority and Parliament itself.
So it is with relief that one can report those concerns to have been misplaced. There is much evidence that the commission has acted in an utterly independent manner. For example, it turned down Sadeen’s initial application because the group failed to meet all seven eligibility criteria. It conducted its own financial due diligence despite one already having been carried out by the Malta Financial Services Authority.
Sadeen was also asked to enter into a contractual agreement with a second university in addition to DePaul (Clemson University in the US) in order to guarantee proper quality assurance. And the group was constrained to recruit a provost with extensive experience of American-type universities.
The 16 conditions, and the transparency of the licensing process, have sealed the commission’s stature. The conditions include a yearly audit by Clemson as well as spot-checks and regular external audits by the commission, investment of “tens of millions of euros” in the first two years of operation and scrutiny of the financial standing of any company within the group funding the project.
The NCFHE even wants to vet any new members of the academic staff for their qualifications and experience.
All democratic countries need strong institutions. They provide assurance that citizens’ interests are being safeguarded and the rule of law upheld, and that State structures are not being usurped for personal or political gain.
They hold power in check and reduce the opportunity for corruption.
The NCFHE is, on the evidence, a member of a shrinking club of well-functioning institutions that include the National Audit Office and the Ombudsman. Whether the government is pleased about that is another matter.