Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1309486
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 15 NOVEMBER 2020 INTERVIEW will only detract from the deci- sion itself? However, the distinction be- tween what is 'illegal', and 'eth- ically wrong', is in itself prob- lematic, given that the people you investigate are also legisla- tors. For instance, you have of- ten complained about the prac- tice of appointing 'persons of trust'. But if the government re- fuses to legislate on the matter: where do your complaints leave us, if not where we started? I have expressed myself many times on the unconstitutionality of this practice; but again, I can't force government not to do it. The most I can say is that, 'this office thinks that this practice is wrong'. Why do I think it is wrong? Let me put it this way: whereas one can understand that, in secretar- iats, you do need a small number of people, in key positions, that you can trust… the reality is that the practice has become so widespread, that it is now totally out of control. Secondly, it has now extend- ed well beyond secretariats… even to positions that are not, in themselves, really all that 'sensi- tive' (for want of a better word). All along, however, the prob- lem is that – at its core – this practice has no legal basis. 'Per- sons of trust' are not mentioned anywhere in the law. The only way the Constitution provides for employment with the gov- ernment, is through the Public Service Commission. But my point is that I can un- derstand the need to make 'ex- ceptions'. I come from a polit- ical background, myself; I'm a practical person, and I do not live in the clouds. So I absolutely agree that there should be pro- visions, at law, to cover these exceptions…. but only as long as it remains an 'exceptional' prac- tice; and only as long as it is con- trolled: in the sense that a mech- anism is introduced, through the Constitution – and not through simple legislation, as there is an attempt to do now – to recog- nise these positions, and give them the stamp of legality. And that, in turn, is something only Parliament can do. The most I can contribute is to make recommendations; but I can't actually change the law myself… Meanwhile, you said that you 'come from a political back- ground'. Are you concerned that your past career as a Na- tionalist Party MP might 'col- our' public reactions to your decisions? My biggest problem, in fact, is that people read media interpre- tations of my reports… without reading the reports themselves. And very often, the media has its own slant. Secondly, because of my political background, peo- ple often try to gauge what the motive behind the decision was; rather than looking at the con- tent of that decision. So instead of looking at whether the decision is 'right' or 'wrong' – or whether it is 'according to the rules' or not – people con- clude that I came to that deci- sion, because 'I'm Nationalist'; or, conversely, 'because I want to suck up to government'. It's al- ways a case of 'either/or': people who disagree with my decisions – and every decision will always go against the feelings of the po- litical die-hards, on one side or the other – will interpret the de- cision, not for what it is…. but rather, for what they perceive to be my motives… All the same, however: I don't consider it as a handicap. Being a former politician is also an ad- vantage: it means I have a certain awareness of how politicians think; and how they tend to op- erate. And this, by the way, also extends to – how can I put it? – knowledge of how politicians may try and 'get out of' certain situations… Secondly, I think it is impor- tant that the person occupying the post of Standards Commis- sioner should, in fact, come from the side of the Opposition: even on the basis that government cannot be expected to scrutinize itself. In the UK's House of Com- mons, for instance, the chairman of the [equivalent] committee always comes from the Opposi- tion… Another question mark sur- rounding your role is that your remit is limited only to cases that occurred after two years ago. Don't you feel that this (somewhat arbitrary) cut-off date was included specifically to prevent you from investi- gating certain specific 'ethical breaches' predating October 2018? We talk about 30 October 2018 as a 'cut-off date'; but in fact, it's not. It's a moving target: al- ways one year from when the act was committed. That's the fur- thest back I can go. Today, for instance, the cut-off date is the 12 November of last year. I can't investigate anything that hap- pened before that date… In practice, however, it also translates into an inability to actually investigate wrongdo- ing at all. This was, in fact, the reason you gave for not inves- tigating the recent revelations about Jason Azzopardi's trip to Tel Aviv in 2017… To be specific: what I said in the Jason Azzopardi case was that: 'You [Azzopardi] know I can't investigate this case. I will not let this office be used for po- litical stunts'… … and yet, in your annual re- port last May, the vast major- ity of cases you investigated turned out to be complaints by politicians, about other politi- cians. So isn't it true that your office is, in effect, 'being used for political stunts'? It is, up to a point, inevitable. I do understand that the person who makes the complaint, can get some kind of political mile- age out of the fact that he's made a complaint. But I don't see that as an issue when it comes to the investi- gation itself. Regardless of any political motivation behind any individual complaint… the ques- tion should ultimately remain: was the behaviour ethically ap- propriate, or not? And it's not always clear-cut. Ethics is, at the end of the day, a subjective concept. And it changes over time: what was considered 'acceptable' yester- day, might not be acceptable to- day, and so on. So I am, in a sense, the 'inter- face' between the public's expec- tations, and the rules. The rules themselves cannot be expected cover all situations… so my job is take any given situation, fit it into the rules; and also, take in- to account what the public ex- pects… On that note, your position al- lows you to look more deeply into Malta's political and insti- tutional set-up than others. On the basis of what you have seen so far, how 'sick' would you say Malta's system really is? I would like to limit myself on- ly to ethical issues; not to cor- ruption in the wider sense. In fact, I am obliged to refer any corruption cases that come my way, to the Commission Against Corruption, or – when the new law is eventually passed – to the Attorney General. So I think it would be very imprudent of me to comment further, at this stage. What I can say, however, is that ethics reflects the society we live in. And there is a downward trend, everywhere, in everything that we do. So in a way, it is good that government had the courage to appoint a Commissioner to put the brakes on: not just to aim for higher standards; but also, to stop the downslide. I hope to be able to do that. Be- cause we are facing a downslide… not just in politics; but in society in general. Don't get me wrong, I am not in any way 'conservative'; I don't believe in preserving old tradi- tions, at all costs; but I do feel we do need to take a good look at ourselves, and how we conduct our public lives. This is, in fact, what the Com- mission was set up for two years ago. But it's a process; and we're still at the early stages… good look at ourselves