Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546635
A read through of the laws es- tablishing diverse public reg- ulators in Malta reveals a glar- ing lack of uniformity when it comes to appointments and dis- missals of their headship. The periods of appointment of office vary from one regulator to another, whereas the grounds for dismissal are in some in- stances significantly different. Some laws envisage procedures whereby a person forming part of the headship dismissed from office can contest his or her dis- missal. Conversely, other laws are silent on this aspect. Are all these differences necessary? Whilst there is no one perfect template that can be applied to all regulators, there are some norms which can be applied to most regulators. Having in place norms on ap- pointments and dismissals of headships that are applicable uniformly can ultimately serve to provide for more clarity and transparency in the overall reg- ulatory landscape. Appointments With some singular excep- tions such as the Broadcasting Authority, the procedure relat- ing to appointments to head- ship positions empowers the minister responsible politically for the regulated sector to ap- point the person or persons making up the headship. Whilst the majority of headships con- sist of collective memberships, there are a few where the head- ship is composed of a single person. Whether the headship consists of a single person or of a collective body is generally conditioned by the nature of the tasks onerous on the regulator concerned, more so where the tasks span across different fields of expertise which may there- fore in turn necessitate decision making by a collective body rather than by a single person. One aspect concerning collec- tive headships that has not been given enough importance is the need to ensure that change in the composition of collective headships is done gradually. Regrettably, in some instances such changes have been made wholesale. This does make practical sense. Whilst, it is of course inevitable that over time members change, it should not be done in such a manner so as to ensure a reasonable degree of continuity in the knowledge and policy direction of the headship in question. In this regard a template that may be adopted is that provid- ed for under the Regulator for Energy and Water Services Act (REWS). This law provides for what is described as 'an appro- priate rotation scheme' whereby the terms of appointment of the members of the REWS Board are not the same, thereby en- suring that some of the earlier members of the Board remain in place when new members are appointed. The periods of appointment to office of the diverse headships vary considerably commencing from unspecified minimum pe- riods up to a maximum of seven years. Hence, the members of the Malta Financial Services Au- thority (MFSA) Board of Gover- nors are appointed for a period of not more than five years (the law does not provide for a mini- mum), whereas for example the members of the REWS Board are appointed for a term of between five to seven years. Moreover, in some instances appointees are eligible for only one other term of office, in other instances for more than one term. Again, there is no apparent reason why these differences exist. Persons who are not eligible for headship appointments are normally listed at law. However, again substantial differences re- sult when going through the list of persons excluded from head- ship membership. Hence, whilst members of the judiciary, minis- ters and members of the House of Representatives or of local councils are invariably exclud- ed, in some instances no men- tion is made of persons declared bankrupt or of persons convict- ed of any criminal offences. In some instances, the law limits itself to persons convicted on- ly of certain criminal offences such fraud and theft, without however mentioning, for exam- ple, equally if not more serious criminal offences such as rape or murder. Persons being con- sidered for headship positions convicted of any serious crimes should by law be definitively ex- cluded. Dismissal When it comes to the dismiss- al of a headship member, the norms in place vary from one regulator to another. One glar- ing omission with some regu- lators is the right of a headship member to contest his or her dismissal if he or she consid- ers that this was unjustified. In many instances the law simply lists the grounds on the basis of which a headship member may be removed during his or her tenure of office, and stops there. A template to remedy such an omission is that provided in the case of the Malta Commu- nications Authority, whereby a member who has been removed from office may ask for a state- ment for the reasons for his or her removal and in doing so may request that this is made public. The member concerned may furthermore seek civil redress before the courts. There is of course more to be said concerning other aspects such as the role of Public Ap- pointments Committee and the procedures adopted in dealing with such appointments. The first point of departure should be the initiation of a public con- sultation proposing measures that can be uniformly applied to public regulators eliminating as much as possible the myriad of diverse norms. 9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 20 SEPTEMBER 2026 OPINION Paul Edgar Micallef Public regulators and the case for some uniformity Lawyer. The views expressed are his own The first point of departure should be the initiation of a public consultation proposing measures that can be uniformly applied to public regulators eliminating as much as possible the myriad of diverse norms