Across the road from Strickland House in St Paul Street, Valletta, there is a building that has no imposing façade and the institution it houses rarely, if ever, blows its trumpet. Yet, it has been playing a key role in the upholding of values that ought to be norms in a democracy. The institution is the Office of the Ombudsman, which was set up in 1995 and whose mission, as officially explained by the Ombudsman, is that "of promoting administrative justice and fairness in the myriad of decisions and countless actions that are taken round the clock by public servants and that influence the day-to-day lives and destines of innumerable citizens".

Such a high-sounding mission may draw cynical remarks from those who could well argue that justice and fairness are elusive values in a society for so long deeply anchored in a mentality based on favouritism, string-pulling and rampant nepotism. It is very true that string-pulling and nepotism are still rampant, including in private industry - to the shame of some managements and boards that, in view of the fact that, outwardly, they often consider themselves arbiters of good management and propriety, ought to know better. But matters seem to be improving today.

The Office of the Ombudsman has opened the way to greater awareness of redress and is now also laying the ground to extend its wings. To those who may be sceptical about its work, picking up just one case from the number the office has successfully settled, and which are explained in its latest annual report, may perhaps help change their view a bit. When, following a call for applications, a government corporation appointed a senior technical officer who had been ineligible to apply for the post, the Ombudsman, acting on behalf of an aggrieved employee, made representations arguing that the selection process was seriously flawed and grossly unjust.

The Ombudsman reports that not only was the whole process invalid and lacking transparency but it also led to justified suspicion of abusive manoeuvring on the part of the corporation, even though this might not have been the case. When the aggrieved worker had first called for a remedy, the corporation did not even bother to give him an explanation of its action but, following the representations of the Ombudsman, the corporation eventually issued a new call for applications for the post of senior technical officer.

This clearly shows the effectiveness of the office. In fact, the Ombudsman, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, now reports that, since the enactment of the law providing for the setting up of the institution, "there have been tangible signs of a renewed ethos in the country's public officials, also driven, no doubt, by other initiatives aimed at public sector reform and modernisation".

When public administration is mired in so many shortcomings, as shown far too often by the string of complaints made annually by the Auditor General, the Ombudsman's remarks go to prove that the right institutional infrastructure and good leadership in key posts can bring about change for the better. In the case of the Ombudsman, his office is bound to play an even more important role when the Ombudsman movement is strengthened in a unified structure that, in the words of the Ombudsman, would broaden the commitment in favour of transparency, openness, accountability and respect for the right of all citizens to good and efficient public administration and ensure a more consistent level of protection to citizens.