by Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon, Parliamentary Ombudsman

The primary job of the Office of the Ombudsman is to investigate acts or omissions of Government, meaning the public service and the public administration, in the performance of their administrative functions. The Office can do so effectively because it is independent of Government, even where its budget is concerned, and enjoys constitutional protection.  

When investigations are concluded, the Office determines whether or not there has been maladministration on the part of the public service and/or the public administration.  

Although the Ombudsman Act 1995 (Chapter 385 of the Laws of Malta) does not have an interpretation clause that specifically defines the term maladministration, in Art 22(1) the Act in very clear terms does determine in four instances when a decision, recommendation, act or omission of Government constitutes maladministration namely:

1. when it appears to have been contrary to law; or
2. was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, or improperly discriminatory, or was in accordance with a law or a practice that is or may be unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, or improperly discriminatory; or
3. was based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact; or
4. was wrong.

There is nothing vague or uncertain in the criteria to which the law refers because every investigation is considered on its own merits according to resultant facts and circumstances.