What is the use of having an Ombudsman if a number of public authorities and even Parliament act indifferently to his recommendations? The cracks being exposed by the Ombudsman in what ought to be a very important part of the overall democratic process is worrying. Yet, the country’s public authorities keep making the Ombudsman’s work difficult and Parliament, which in 2007 raised the institution to a constitutional level, is dragging its feet.

When the Ombudsman said in 2017 that the situation was fast getting out of control and that the people’s right to an accountable public administration was being seriously prejudiced, many believed that disregard to good governance must have then reached the ultimate level. Going by what the Ombudsman has said in his report for 2018, one would be justified in concluding that the situation has worsened even further.

The Ombudsman, the defender of the citizen, said that “following negative response from the public authorities to requests to implement our recommendations”, his office sent a number of these “final opinions” to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. If the fact that his office had received a negative response to its recommendations is bad enough, which it is, how would one begin to describe Parliament’s attitude?

This is what the Ombudsman said: “We have indicated that, to date, none of these referrals have been actively considered by the House. There has been no response whatsoever. One can safely conclude that this statutory procedure provided for in the Ombudsman Act, which was meant to be a final safeguard to provide redress against injustice to aggrieved citizen, is proving to be ineffective. This needs to be remedied.”

This attitude is unacceptable and the government, and the Opposition, ought to take up the matter up with a sense of real commitment without further delay. The Ombudsman has “welcomed the start of a legislative process initiated by government in Parliament” on changes suggested by the Venice Commission. However, those with a finger on the pulse of the country’s democratic process are now tired of the government’s declarations of commitments.

With key commitments to accountability and transparency falling by the wayside, there is now growing distrust in the government’s declarations. What counts is willingness to implement these pledges, made with great fanfare, rather than mere talk. Indeed, in a good number of cases, the government has made an absolute mockery of such key pledges.

The Venice Commission has described as “worrying” the complaint repeatedly made by the Ombudsman that requests for information were frequently not complied with. It said: “Widespread refusal by the administration to provide information needed for the work of the Ombudsman is inadmissible. The Ombudsman cannot be made dependent on enforcing his/her requests for information in the courts in each case.”

There may be grounds justifying the withholding of information, such as when this concerns security, but, generally speaking, the administration and public authorities are becoming less, not more, transparent and accountable. Indeed, the Venice Commission is recommending the updating of the Freedom of Information Act to guarantee greater transparency of the administration vis-à-vis the media and the citizens.

Another crucial recommendation is for Parliament to be obliged to debate reports addressed to it by the Ombudsman. It is useless having democratic institutions unless they are effective in their roles.

This is a Times of Malta print editorial

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.