|
James Debono
The director of the Internal Audit and Investigations Directorate (IAID), the state’s watchdog on government spending, has been absolved from various allegations of preferential treatment after an internal investigation concluded they could not be “substantiated”.
But the Union Haddiema Maqghudin, who called for the investigation on Pierre Pace, is questioning the way the investigation was conducted. The UHM is claiming all employees in the department should have been asked to give evidence, after the investigation relied on just a written declaration by the director and two employees who denied the allegations against them.
The investigation was conducted by the former secretary to the Cabinet, Joseph Scicluna, who was recently appointed as chairman of the Broadcasting Authority, after he was prompted by an email sent by the UHM which included very serious allegations.
In an email it sent to Godwin Grima in June, the UHM asked for an investigation on a number of “acts of victimisation and injustices” endured by employees of this department.
The most damning allegation contained in the UHM’s dossier was that two employees enjoyed a monopoly on overtime in the department. The dossier states “it is alleged that although these workers are being paid for overtime, none of them work extra hours before or after normal working hours, despite signing the overtime sheets.”
Other allegations included the victimisation of the union’s shop stewards and the passing of useful information to some IAID employees sitting for interviews for positions within the department.
Godwin Grima, the head of the civil service, acknowledged that the union was not fully satisfied “but ongoing contacts at the highest level are underway.”
The union’s secretary for government employees, Mario Sacco, said the UHM asked for the investigation following complaints by various workers in the IAID. “To ensure that all facts are established and to ensure a fair hearing for everyone, all employees in this office should have been interviewed,” Sacco told MaltaToday.
Following the UHM’s email, Joseph Scicluna replied that the director and the two employees mentioned in the allegations had signed written declarations denying the allegations made against them.
Scicluna requested further details from the union on the alleged abuses as well as a written declaration signed by the employees making the allegations.
But the UHM told Scicluna “there was no need for the union to provide more details.”
Dismissing the call for a written declaration from the employees, the union proposed that all department employees, including past workers, should be investigated. “One can only come to a conclusion after listening to the testimony of all the employees,” Saccor said.
The UHM’s efforts to have Scicluna interview the entire staff was to no avail. In October Godwin Grima informed the UHM that the allegations contained in the UHM’s email had not been “not substantiated.”
In the letter Grima acknowledged that “the management of the department could improve if all the parts make an effort to eliminate the confrontation which exists in the department.”
Asked why the department’s staff was not investigated, Grima said Joseph Scicluna had carried out all the interviews he considered necessary.
Currently, government employees denouncing abuses do not enjoy any legal protection from victimisation. A White Paper on public service reform proposed in 2003 includes a provision giving protection to whistleblowers. The government is committed to present the bill in the coming months.
jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt
|
