Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1542534
The following are excerpts from the interview. The full interview can be found on maltatoday.com.mt as well as our Facebook and Spotify pages. PHOTOS: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTA TODAY In March, your second term as auditor general comes to an end. How would you describe the past 10 years? They were challenging years but satisfying at the same time. Challenging because audits are difficult assignments—we go into a place, take a snapshot, comment on it and more importantly make recommendations on how the issues that have been flagged are to be addressed… Our intention is not to point our finger and accuse people… our intention is to ensure that any issues, situations or systems that are flagged for not working well for our citizens… with discussions with the auditee and when we see goodwill from their end to fix the issue, that gives us satisfaction. There are challenges that emanate from the fact that we are a small country and people know each other… I was a permanent secretary [before joining the National Audit Office] and I ended up auditing permanent secretaries with whom I worked with previously. It's not an easy situation [to deal with] but in a mature and professional way we managed just the same. A constant point of criticism found in the NAO's reports—the annual audits and investigations, which take up the most news space because of their controversial nature—is the lack of minutes, documents and a lack of trail showing how a decision was taken, by whom and the justification for it. The best hypothesis for this is that these shortcomings are the result of negli- gence… the worst hypothesis is that this is a convenient way of covering up for abuse. What do you think is the reason? This is a very important question. We are set up to strengthen good governance; accountability and transparency. If there is no documentation, which is a regular finding from our part, there is definitely no accountability and transparency… Whenever we come across this situation, we ask ourselves whether this is the result of an oversight, negligence or intended to cover up wrongdoing. I am not bringing up the next argument to justify the lack of documentation but our small size does not encourage us to keep documentation. Imagine you are a permanent secretary—you know all your peers on a first-name basis because you meet them every week—and there is an initiative that requires attention, you pick up the phone and get the matter solved immediately. Familiarity means decisions are taken over the phone. It's not a good thing. This system exists because we are small, everyone knows and trusts each other but it's not right. We [the NAO] keep repeating that decisions, especially the big decisions, should be documented and justified. If someone decided to issue a direct order instead of a tender, the person should justify that decision and document it so that when the auditor is probing the entity, they can understand the reasons for such a course of action… This raises a pertinent point. The NAO is repeatedly making such an observa- tion, sometimes using strong language to flag the wrongdoing, but to no avail because there doesn't seem to be any consequence. Not always. Maybe, the consequences are not strong enough. But isn't it time to have legal amend- ments that enforce consequences when such findings are made? If you are asking me whether the NAO should have executive powers; I don't agree. No NAO has executive powers. If the NAO, which is there to examine and comment, starts taking action [against auditees], who will then oversee our actions. Our work is like that of a doctor. Our team goes to the patient, focusses on where the problem might be, identify the risks and pinpoint the problems. Once we find shortcomings, we not only point our finger but issue recommendations. Similarly, the doctor investigates the source of my ailment and prescribes medicine. It is then up to me to decide whether to buy and take the medicine. It is up to the public service to decide whether to take up our recommendations… We also carry out follow up audits and indications are that on average between 75% and 80% of our auditees take on board our suggestions. We are one of the few countries, if not the only country, where the public service of its own accord publishes a governance report to outline how many of the recommendations made by the NAO were implemented. Generally, the figures published in this governance report, agree with our follow-up findings… There are investigations the NAO carried out that uncovered potential criminal behaviour. Has your office ever referred cases to the police? Does it have the remit to report findings of a potential criminal nature to the police? When we find cases like these, we are obliged to inform the permanent secretary of the ministry concerned and if we see that no action is being taken, we will go directly to the police. Some two years ago, a legal amendment also empowered the NAO to go to the attorney general if matters are not being followed up. We have good cooperation with the police force… Were there cases where you went to the police? Yes. But there were other cases in which the police decided to investigate following the publication of an audit and they asked for our cooperation. We invite the police to come over, discuss the case and provide all the information they may require. But I must underline that the scope of an audit is good governance. It is not to uncover corruption. But obviously, if during an audit, we encounter cases that raise suspicion of criminal intent, we cannot look the other side. At that point we are obliged to inform the ministry and if no action results, we take further steps to ensure action is taken. When the police decide to investigate, we provide all the information but I have to emphasise that generally, that information alone is not enough for a court of law, which requires evidence. But the information we provide suggests what pathways the police can follow to secure evidence… The three voluminous reports the NAO produced on its investigation into the Vitals-Steward deal, were crucial in the civil case instituted by Adrian Delia for the court's eventual decision to annul the contract. I would assume this was also a moment of satisfaction. Our duty is to inform the citizens of the truth. What we find [in our audits and investigations] we are obliged to report on. I always insist on the three values without which the NAO does not exist—objectivity, independence and professionalism. Once we adopt these values in our work, we will continue being credible... When we mention a fact, it is evidence-based. What documentation did we find? What evidence did we find [to substantiate the observation]? This is why missing documentation obstructs our work… People have a right to know but this is not just an exercise in pinpointing who did the wrongdoing but to learn from such situations. My biggest displeasure would be if in the future the country chooses to enter into another public-private partnership (PPP) arrangement in the health sector and the same mistakes are repeated. If on the other hand the country enters into another PPP arrangement and things are done better, it would be a source of satisfaction. From your experience, are these PPPs being managed in a transparent and accountable manner? When they are launched, we are told of the benefits the public and country will derive but over time, we never have anyone tell- ing us how they actually performed. For as long as I have been here at the NAO, almost 18 years, our teams audited six PPPs across different administrations and none of them showed an outcome that was favourable to the government. The reasons are many. The idea of a PPP is that the risks and benefits are shared [between the government and the private operator] but unfortunately what happens is that the government carries most of the risks and the private company enjoys most of the benefits… In the era of AI, both in terms of its use by your office to help you in your audits and in terms of AI use by auditees, what is your view on this new phenomenon? We cannot ignore this development; it would be a mistake for this office or any other office to ignore AI… like any other tool it can be used in a good way or a bad way and we have to be aware of this. […] We have people in this office who are using AI tools to analyse data and draft texts but the human dimension can never be lost. […] Ultimate responsibility lies with people and God forbid we lose our professional judgement… Your term ends in March. Your successor has to be appointed through a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Have you been consulted on your replacement by the prime minister? I don't know what practice was used before my time but I haven't been consulted. But there are other constitutional vacancies that will have to be filled before that of auditor general. Is there political goodwill to reach an agreement on your replacement by March? I cannot answer that question. The politicians have to answer that... 5 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 11 JANAURY 2026 INTERVIEW