Unless he received a formal request by the House Business Committee, the Ombudsman said he was unable to probe the methodology used by the army complaints board.
The request was made by Opposition MP Jason Azzopardi on March 8, invoking a proviso in the Ombudsman Act which allowed Parliament to make such requests. The matter was then discussed in the House Business Committee where it was agreed that Speaker Anġlu Farrugia would request the Ombudsman to investigate.
The complaints board was appointed by the Home Affairs Ministry following the change of government last year and is tasked with looking into army promotions handed out during the previous administration. So far, the board, presided over by former army commander Maurice Calleja, has upheld 60 per cent of about 200 complaints submitted.
In a letter tabled in Parliament on Monday, the Ombudsman pointed out that this was the first time he had ever received a request from a House committee. Thus, he felt the need to lay out the procedure that should be followed in the future.
Quoting article 13 of the Ombudsman Act, he said that by law, a “petition” had to be first presented to the House committee, which would then consider its merits. Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino said it was only in the context of such a consideration that the committee could refer the petition to his office.
Dr Said Pullicino said such a request could only be made by the committee but not by the person behind the petition, whether in his personal capacity or through an MP, the Opposition or anybody else.
The first time ever that he had received a request from a House committee
Acknowledging that, in the eyes of the law, Dr Azzopardi’s request qualified as a petition, there was nothing to show that the House Business Committee had decided to refer to the Ombudsman the merits of the said petition, in line with article 13.
To avoid doubts about the validity of the procedure, the Ombudsman said a reference had to be made by the committee. If the same MP had filed the petition on behalf of a person who felt aggrieved by the army complaints board it would have been a completely different case. In such a scenario, the aggrieved party would have had a personal interest in the merits of the case.
He added that it was standard practice for the Ombudsman’s office to investigate complaints filed by MPs on behalf of their constituents, even though the number of such instances was rather limited.
Dr Said Pullicino said his letter had to be published in view of the publicity given to Dr Azzopardi’s request.