Today is the last day of Joseph Said Pullicino's tenure as Ombudsman after 10 years in office. Ivan Camilleri spoke to him about his long career in public life, during which he also served as the Chief Justice and as chairman of the Broadcasting Authority.

You have been serving this country for quite a long time. When I looked at your CV I realised that next year you will be 80. Does this send a message to younger people?

I am not as surprised as you are! Joking apart, age is not important and is just a coincidence. What matters most is your physical and mental state. As long as these two things are OK there’s no problem.

So are you hinting that you intend to continue working?

I’ve already retired four times in my life and as long as it’s still possible I will continue working. I think that this is a good message for active ageing. The most important thing is that you keep going and do things you enjoy. So long as one can continue to contribute…why not?

Isn’t 10 years heading the office of the Ombudsman a bit too long?

I don’t think it’s too long. It is a long enough period so that an incumbent can implement his plan. It is important that this long period is in place.

But isn’t 10 years too much?

I have always maintained that there should be only one term of seven to nine years and not two terms as is the case now. It doesn’t make sense that an Ombudsman is appointed for five years and then his term can be renewed for another five. That may create an issue, particularly during the first term, as a sitting Ombudsman might think twice about certain actions and recommendations in order to calm the situation and stand a chance for a second term. This should not be the case and one longer term of seven to nine years is preferable.

Yes, but the Ombudsman has some kind of security of tenure as he can only be appointed by a two-thirds majority of MPs.

That is a fact. But when there is an intermission of five years, one might think twice about certain decisions as one would still depend on a parliamentary vote and the consensus of the two sides. A security of tenure should be a full security of tenure. One term of seven years.

You practised as a lawyer for more than 30 years before you were appointed to the bench to serve as a judge. How do you compare law practice today with the time you used to work at the law courts?

Times have changed and the practice of law is no different. While in my time nearly all lawyers used to work at the law courts, nowadays only a fraction do. There are so many other areas where lawyers are working, from financial services to the gaming industry to the maritime sector.

On the other hand, those who practise law at the courts are still using the same methods we used to. I am not referring to ethics and other important things but to procedure. Ethics is a different thing.

Some argue that there are too many lawyers and that everyone is now becoming a lawyer. How do you look at the level of today’s law course at the university?

That everyone can become a lawyer is not a good omen. The law course should not become a depository for those students who have not managed to make it to other courses. This is wrong and it’s up to the university to correct this situation.

I think that lately there have been efforts to solve this problem. There have been instances where it was very easy to become a lawyer and this is not good. At the same time, it is important that students have a good training in legal issues. But no, not everyone can become a lawyer.

You served as a Chief Justice and know exactly how the law courts function. People don’t seem to be so happy with the justice system. They have lost trust.

It is in the nature of the courts that half of the people end up happy with a favourable sentence and the other half are disappointed. However, I would not really say that people have lost trust. I think that, generally speaking, justice is served even though sometimes a bit late.

You are being too positive when you say a little bit late. Often court cases are never-ending as judges do what they please and no control is exercised on them. Is this on?

Today there is too much concentration on numbers and systems being created by the authorities to lower the number of pending cases. I don’t really give much importance to numbers, as this is not a measure of success. Creating tribunals so that justice is done differently does not make sense as it’s not the same type of justice. I don’t agree with this approach.

Instead we need to think about different ways to serve the same quality of justice but in a more efficient way.

And what about the members of the judiciary?

Yes, it is true that there are problems of discipline. But even there we must be cautious. No two cases are the same and things cannot be so easily compared.

So if a judge concludes 100 cases and another concludes 50 in the same period, it does not mean that the first judge is better than the other one. Some cases may be much more complicated than others and need much more work.

Until some 30 years ago, our island had certain values. Traditional, religious… call them what you like. However, everyone knew what was right and what was wrong

There should be a better monitoring system to follow what is going on and draw the attention of members of the judiciary. The Commission for the Administration of Justice is supposed to perform this role.

Supposed to…?

Yes, it is a problem that the commission did not work even though it should have. Now we have the (Giovanni) Bonello suggestions. Some are very good and others are questionable. But, definitely, there should be a tightening up of the system.

What I don’t agree with are remedies which take people away from the courts. This is not on as people need to have confidence that the court delivers justice.

What are your general thoughts about what the Bonello commission has put on the table?

Some of the proposals, particularly where it comes to procedures in both civil and criminal cases, are good and are being implemented. This is positive.

There are other things like the possibility of fining members of the judiciary as a means of discipline, which I don’t like.

It is true that more discipline is needed but I don’t think that fines are the way forward. Things that work abroad do not necessarily work out in the local context.

But you’ve just said that discipline is needed even among members of the judiciary. How are you going to do that if the only way possible today is impeachment which, as you know, is almost impossible?

I agree that discipline should be strengthened but it depends on how it is implemented.

I agree that there should be new systems to tighten up discipline but from my experience, judges in general do their work properly.

Obviously, if there is a judge who doesn’t come in for work, discipline should be applied. There should be something in between the current system where it’s either impeachment or nothing.

And what is it?

A monitoring system, as suggested by the Bonello commission, is a step forward.

The Bonello commission and others have been proposing a radical change in the appointment of members of the judiciary where this will no longer be the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Do you agree?

The current prerogative of the executive to appoint judges and magistrates should come to an end. This is a colonial system which needs to change.

This does not mean in any way that those chosen under the current system are somehow not the right people for the job.

From my own experience, I think most of those selected were and are good judges. In every system there are always going to be some bad apples. But in general the system worked.

So why change the system?

The system is wrong as the executive appoints judges who later may be called to judge the same executive or matters related to it. This is odd and should not carry on.

Remember, justice needs also to be seen to be done.

What’s the solution?

There has already been a system in place whereby the Commission for the Administration of Justice could have been consulted before appointments to the bench were made. For some reason, the system did not function.

The idea of a filtering system and scrutiny before appointments are made is very important and should be introduced as soon as possible. At the same time, I don’t agree with exams, as you are supposed to appoint people who are already capable.

What is most important is that the prerogative doesn’t remain one of the government of the day but will be transferred to a real independent system.

What is your opinion on the latest polemic where Minister Owen Bonnici proposed to appoint two new magistrates despite dubious constitutional constraints?

I won’t comment on that as it is not my competence. What I would say only is that the Constitution should be observed to the letter in every case.

Until what age should judges and magistrates work?

Fifteen years ago I had recommended as vice chair of the Commission for the Administration of Justice that the retirement age should be 68. I read that the same proposal has now been made.

Isn’t 68 too young nowadays?

It may be. In my case I could have continued to serve until 80. But that depends on the individual. However, obviously there should be some kind of limit.

In your long career, you have also served as chairman of the Broadcasting Authority. Looking back, does it make sense nowadays to have this authority in the era of pluralism, social media and all other means of communication?

I used to ask the same question when I was chairman of the Broadcasting Authority. To me, there should not be a distinction between public broadcasting and private/political broadcasting.

I think that PBS was never impartial. It’s just a question of how biased it is. A matter of degree or dosage

All stations should be regulated in the same way. I don’t think that one should exclude a political party from owning a station – as that is a democratic right. But they need to be regulated. Rules should apply in the same way for all.

The theory that political stations balance each other out is a fallacy. However, the political parties decided to have it this way and this is what we have.

The only scope for a Broadcasting Authority is to regulate all broadcasting according to the same rules. No more no less. Today, with internet and social media, the impact of broadcasting is much smaller than it used to be. However, you can’t have a free-for-all situation.

Isn’t this what we have? A free for all?

Yes, but that is because politicians wanted it that way. Still, it should not be this way.

So the BA is supposed to be making sure PBS is impartial. Is it?

I think that PBS was never impartial. It’s just a question of how biased it is. A matter of degree or dosage.

Unfortunately, this depends on the people involved at the time and to what extent they allow interference.

So long as the government of the day appoints people at PBS and funds the station, there is always a big risk.

Let’s talk about your current role and the one we remember you most in. You’ve been the second Ombudsman to serve since the institution’s inception. Your predecessor had some problems with the administration and you seem to have followed suit. Do governments really believe in the Ombudsman’s role?

The reality is one of two. Either they don’t believe in the institution or they don’t believe in it as much as they should.

There were governments who believed that the Ombudsman was a respectable institution that should be given all necessary resources to strengthen it. There are others who think that the institution is just a necessary evil.

What is your experience with different governments and administrations?

From my own experience – and I have worked under PN and PL administrations – I can tell you that I’ve never had any sort of interference in my work.

I was always given due respect and many of my recommendations were implemented.

However, if there aren’t situations where the Ombudsman is not at loggerheads with the government, that means that the Ombudsman is not doing his work.

During your time in office you worked with the Nationalist and Labour administrations. Did both treat your office the same way?

In certain respects they looked at us in the same way.

However, when there was a problem, the administrations’ attitudes were different.

With the Labour administration, when there is a problem they almost ignore you. It does not mean that they won’t try. However, as in the case of the army promotions, we had to go to court for an interpretation as the government is contesting the remit of the Ombudsman. I don’t think this is right and I told the government so.

So are you saying that through its actions, the government is in some way undermining the authority of the Ombudsman?

That’s up for the public opinion to decide.

Good governance is one of the most important issues for any respectable Ombudsman. How do you assess the current level of governance in Malta’s public administration?

It is a known fact that there is an issue over governance.

Our office realised this some years ago and alerted those responsible that certain situations and decisions may lead to the lowering of standards of governance.

Our role is to be the conscience of any administration. Good governance has become an issue and this was also admitted recently by the Prime Minster.

The problem is complex and varied in nature but it is all related to an administration that is not as transparent as it should be, not as open and not accountable enough.

We made a public statement that lack of transparency may lead to corruption. These are things on which we have already raised the alarm.

I don’t know if this has led to what is now being termed as a lack of good governance, but there is a clear problem of governance.

Is the alarm you sounded on governance getting louder?

Yes. I think so.

However, this is also a reflection of the society we are living in.

What do you mean?

Until some 30 years ago, our island had certain values. Traditional, religious… call them what you like. However, everyone knew what was right and what was wrong.

It is obvious that the attitudes of certain administrators today are a result of the fact that they have no values and think they are not accountable.

This is not something that is for the Ombudsman to say but is out there for everyone to see.

If we have more or less governance now than before is immaterial at this stage. What I am concerned about is today and the future.