On February 13, the Ombudsman published his findings on a complaint raised by six army officers. The officers felt aggrieved by a promotion exercise carried out by the army in August 2013. The Ombudsman found in their favour, stating that the whole selection process was vitiated and that the complainants suffered an injustice. He recommended that the injustice suffered be redressed, something which the army failed to do.
According to the Ombudsman’s Act, when a public entity fails to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations then the Ombudsman can at his discretion inform the Prime Minister and Parliament.
In fact, in May and October last year, the Ombudsman wrote to the Prime Minister, informing him that the Home Affairs Minister was not accepting the Ombudsman’s recommendations. In his letter, the Ombudsman again requested that his recommendations be implemented.
A flashback to the case is warranted. In 2013, immediately after taking office, the Labour government initiated a widespread cleansing of all top positions in the public service and public sector. Nearly all persons occupying top management positions were replaced. This was an unprecedented move in Malta’s public administration, a move which jarred completely with Labour’s pre-electoral promises.
Labour promised a meritocratic government. They promised a government that was prepared to work with everyone irrespective of one’s political creed. However, in one fell swoop, nearly all permanent secretaries, the Commissioner of Police, top army brass and chief executive officers of public entities were asked to step down.
The cleansing exercise continued in the weeks and months that followed, with directors and director generals also being replaced. Recently, the case of the Director General Fisheries was in the news. She was removed from office in 2010 only to be re-instated by the Labour government in 2013.
It is pertinent to point out that the person selected by the Nationalist administration to replace the Director General Fisheries in 2010 eventually became Permanent Secretary Ministry of Education under Labour. He was never a PN sympathiser, to put it mildly, but this did not stop his career progression during the 2008-2013 Nationalist administration.
The Ombudsman, in his report, compares how things happened under PN and Labour administrations. While stating that no system is perfect, the Ombudsman commented that under a PN administration there was an effort to conduct selection processes which was objective and auditable. Under Labour, the selection process was “vitiated”, lacked integrity and was intended to “produce a desired outcome”.
In any democracy, this condemnation from the Ombudsman would have had serious repercussions. Heads would have rolled. But not in Malta. Instead, the government is doing its best to bury this report.
The selection process as carried out was not simply a matter of an injustice carried out against the aggrieved officers. It was an affront to democracy in Malta
The report lambasts the government, in particular the Home Affairs Ministry, on its lack of sensitivity to basic notions of democratic governance. Allow me to quote a couple of sentences. “It is surprising to this [Ombudsman’s] Office how your ministry does not seem to appreciate the significance of selecting the best officers in the army by a process which is above reproach and truly impartial. In your response to our report, the ministry does not seem to be aware of the serious repercussions to democracy in this country if officers in the army are not selected in a just and impartial way.”
The Ombudsman here is making a critical point. The selection process as carried out was not simply a matter of an injustice carried out against the aggrieved officers. It was an affront to democracy in Malta.
Our system of governance is based on checks and balances to ensure that nobody in this country has absolute power. This government, by a series of targeted measures has diluted that system of checks and balances. This government has rendered our institutions toothless.
Most of our state institutions have effectively been transformed into an extension of government. Joseph Muscat changed the law to allow members of Parliament to chair public entities. He took the unprecedented step of replacing permanent secretaries following an election.
He replaced John Rizzo, the Commissioner of Police, a person who clearly would not have taken instructions from Castille on whom to and not to investigate and arraign.
Yes, these things matter beyond the personal dimension. These are not matters of personal injustice but issues that affect the core of our democracy.
The Ombudsman’s report on the army promotion exercise in many ways highlights the modus operandi of this government. It is a government that hijacked all state institutions with the sole aim of gaining full control of this country.
When evaluating the impacts of this report, we should consider two things. Firstly, there are the selected preferred few who are moving ahead and getting promoted at the expense of those who really merit it.
But secondly and more important, what is Muscat getting in return? This government moved ahead with controversial plans and policies because government authorities failed to carry out their duties diligently. We have police investigations that never took off or are moving at a snail’s pace.
The Ombudsman’s report raises a number of questions. Perhaps the most critical one, the obvious one that comes to mind after reading the report is whether Malta is still a functioning democracy?
Adrian Delia is leader of the Opposition and the Nationalist Party, and PN spokesman on Justice and the Rule of Law.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece