I refer to the letter by Keith Zahra (The Sunday Times, February 28). I repeat what I said in my previous letter about the relation between the Lotteries and Other Games Act and the Voluntary Organisations Act (2007), namely that the second, coming later, supersedes the first. This is elementary law that the ministry is ignoring for reasons that Mr Zahra makes clear with his reference to Church organisations.

He has pinpointed where the root problem lies. The truth is that the ministry is unwilling to apply Article 4 of the Voluntary Organisations Act to Church organisations that are refusing, under Curia instructions, to enrol with the Commissioner. This is the nub of the matter, and this is what he should have said straight out instead of trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Article 4 of the law specifies that any "beneficiary of grants, sponsorships or other financial aid from the government" or "any entity controlled by the government" is restricted to enrolled organisations. This unambiguously includes the Ministry of Finance and the committee that administers the fund.

The committee, Mr Zahra said, "feels aggrieved" that in my letter I "cast doubt on the way funding and assistance has been granted". I did more, I told them plainly, as is my duty, that it is illegal. If the financial reports tabled in Parliament yearly by the Finance Minister were enough, what need for the voluntary organisations law which the Government introduced and passed through Parliament? What need for a commissioner charged with the responsibility "to ensure the observance of high standards and accountability and transparency and compliance with the law" (Article 7 [h])?

In the light of this article of the law Mr Zahra's statement that "the ministry has made it clear that it will not get involved with the commissioner as to which organisations ought or ought not to benefit in terms of the Voluntary Organisations Act" is truly worrying, not to say arrogant. I hope the ministry will reconsider this policy carefully, even seeking its own legal advice if necessary, and guide the committee wisely. Contrary to what he insists, its attitude clearly "jeopardises the commissioner's ability to perform his duties" which includes calling ministries like his to task when they are not "in compliance with the law".