BackAn article by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Mr Joseph Zammit McKeon - published on Movers and Shakers 2024 - An Official publication of the Malta Chamber
"The objective of the Office of the Ombudsman (which includes the Commissioners) is not simply to investigate complaints submitted in writing by persons with regard to the exercise of administrative functions by Government or any public authority or public body to which Chapter 385 applies, but also to promote a public service culture based on fairness and accountability by democratic scrutiny and control that counters malpractice and misplaced bureaucracy.
Any physical person of any nationality, and any “legal” person, can submit a written complaint against a public authority to which Chapter 385 applies. This point of law and of fact should encourage the business community to come forward to the Office of the Ombudsman and file written complaints when public authorities fail to give redress. I very much hope that what I shall be stating today will suffice to satisfy the business community that the Office of the Ombudsman is there for them as well when they feel that public authorities have failed them.
First and foremost. The fact that at law the Ombudsman (and the Commissioners) make recommendations and not executive orders does not in any manner whatsoever make the Office a useless or toothless institution as some mistakenly think. Experience has disproved this wrong impression. The majority are the cases where the public administration endorses and implements recommendations. Where in the minority of cases the public administration holds back, the Ombudsman can react by referring the matter ultimately to the House of Representatives. The Commissioners and myself have used this discretion with prudence and attention on numerous instances where it was felt that the matter or the issues involved were of public interest. There have been cases on record where recommendations were applied at that final stage. The Office considers non-implemented recommendations as missed opportunities for the public administration to put its act in order. When the Office recommends against the public administration in individual complaints, the public administration would be wrong to consider the Office as an adversary of some sort. Many a time recommendation push towards changes in “red-tape” methodology that could have been acceptable years back but which are no longer relevant today.
In its investigations, the Office strives to ensure fair treatment, promote transparency, and facilitate resolution in a neutral manner. The Office operates according to principles of secrecy and confidentiality, meaning that persons can share their concerns without fear of reprisal. This unique approach that is required at law fosters trust, as persons feel secure in discussing sensitive issues without the concern that information could be disclosed to others. Ombudsmen are expected to be impartial and fair in their assessments and interventions.
In my eighteen months in office, I have seen this happen and can therefore convincingly state that complainants and the public administration are treated alike equitably. Accessibility of the Ombudsman is crucial. At the Office we have done our very best to be approachable and available when needed. Knowing that there is a reliable and responsive channel for conflict resolution contributes to a sense of trust in the Office. Another positive fact is that the operations of the Office are clear and understandable because in essence they are open to scrutiny.
The independence of the Office is its benchmark. Because it is a constitutional institution, that is separate and distinct from the other organs of the State, the Office has been decisive in identifying weaknesses, malfunctions, failures and bad practices in the administration of public bodies. The Office has proved itself to be fast, resolutive, informal and inexpensive. As an overseer of Government, the Ombudsman has the tangible ability to ensure that the public administration conducts itself lawfully, makes decisions reasonably, and treats all persons equitably and fairly.
I strongly believe that in the public service there are officials who are professional and sensitive enough to decide what is right (and oppose what is wrong) not simply in order to make better the workings of Government but also to improve really and truly the everyday lives of people who knock at the doors of the public administration.
I have done my fair share to convince Government and the public administration to move away from arguments that favour a status quo approach. The Ombudsman has proved to be a successful mechanism for holding the Executive to account because people trust the institution. People will vouch for the Office when it shows that it will not give in to pressure of any sort from the public administration, although a respectful non-necessarily confrontational relationship with the public administration does not affect trust. The Office has to continue to be innovative and adapt to changing challenges and opportunities.
The Office is there for all without any distinction whatsoever to avail oneself of its services. Our commitment is there for all to experience."
Source: The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta
