[WATCH] Joseph Zammit McKeon: ‘I want to build bridges in my time as Ombudsman’

Ombudsman judge emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon wants his tenure to be remembered as one in which his office, built bridges with the country’s different institutions.

“Even when I’m criticised, I believe that every cloud has its silver lining, and I try to practice that belief. This is an office where a lot of good can and is done, and that is why I try to avoid controversy,” he tells me.

The Ombudsman sits down with me a few weeks after his report on the Corradino Correctional Facility (CCF) under the administration of retired army colonel Alex Dalli raised serious human rights concerns.

“My job is to look for what is right, for justice; work within the confines of the law, and make the recommendations. The implementation is in other people’s hands,” he tells me.

Zammit McKeon also defends his report after Prime Minister Robert Abela told journalists it is easy for one to write a report while “sitting behind a desk” and not experiencing the situation from inside the prison.

“I respect the Prime Minister as a person, and I respect his role, but with all due respect, I cannot agree with him. That investigation was carried out meticulously,” Zammit McKeon says. “The testimonies of everyone were heard, including the highest roles in the prison.”

He also points out that testimonies were also taken at the CCF. “Therefore, we know exactly what happened in prison.”

The Ombudsman also insists that an investigator from his Office visits the facility at least once every two weeks.

I ask him why his Office does not recommend criminal action after its reports, or why it does not go to the police when it uncovers suspected criminal activity. The Ombudsman argues it is crucial that people retain trust in the confidentiality that his office affords.

“When the information is collected, it is confidential information. […] I have to safeguard the secrecy people trust in me. If the police ask me where I got that information, I cannot give that information, or else people will not trust this Office,” he says.

The following is an excerpt of the interview.

The full interview can also be viewed on Facebook and Spotify.

How many of your recommendations were taken onboard since you became Ombudsman?

The overwhelming majority of recommendations were acted on. In 2023 and 2024, around 76% were taken on board. That is a good amount. When the recommendations are ignored by a particular department or ministry, the Ombudsman, at his discretion, sends the report to the Prime Minister for him to analyse it.

I am asking you because the majority do have their complaints addressed, but you have some people, who despite being vindicated by your findings, see no action being taken on their complaint. Should there be a mechanism which empowers you to force that complaint to be addressed?

I can only work within the parameters allowed to me by law. The law states that if the complaint is not addressed by the department or ministry, the report is sent to the Prime Minister, who I am sure assesses it diligently. If even the Prime Minister does not act on it, the report is then sent to parliament.

You recently issued a report calling on government to officially recognise the Ombudsman as the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) of Malta. What does this mean? Is it just a name?

The first thing is – it is not acceptable that we (Malta) are among the remaining few in both the Council of Europe and the European Union not to have an NHRI.

What we are proposing is that, instead of building a new institution, which must be separate from every government and administration, we use an existing structure that fits all the prerequisites – the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman is the institution, not the person. We need this structure. It cannot be that, for a person to seek out their rights, they have to go to court by force. Why shouldn’t there be a structure which itself investigates breaches of human rights? Let us not forget, there is no time-bar on human rights.

Therefore, you could have a situation where you go with your complaint to the Ombudsman, he investigates your case, takes his time, and issues a report which vindicates you. If that report is not addressed by the administration, you can take that report to court. But how different it is to back your claims with a report which holds moral standing.

The NHRI not only protects human rights but also looks to promote these rights. Where is that promotion of human rights today? You don’t promote human rights by attacking, but by showing people what these rights are.

As part of your report, you also drafted a law. In reaction to this, MP Edward Zammit Lewis said that while he respects you personally, he believes you should not be writing a law which regulates an entity which you would be leading. What is your reaction?

I have great respect for Edward Zammit Lewis, and he knows this. But I ask: Is it not better to have a working document, rather than not having anything? Do you want to rip up that document? It won’t matter; that is why we live in a democratic society.

But should criticism be directed towards someone who acted proactively and did not just stop at making the proposal?

[…]

When this office carries out investigations and proposes changes, as it is duty-bound to do, to improve the law, is it not part of its functions? Should the office be criticised for proposing legislation? The Ombudsman’s job is not to stop at investigation, but to help the administration improve its work.

You report to parliament. The Auditor General and the Standards Commissioner do the same, and their reports are discussed in parliamentary committees. Do you think the same should happen with reports you publish?

That is exactly what we proposed. We want this to happen with reports which contain recommendations that were not implemented.
We are saying this because the annual report is not debated, but nothing holds MPs back from discussing it. Only the Ombudsman, which concerns the office’s budget, is discussed in parliament.

What really impacts people is when recommendations on their complaints are not implemented. We proposed that there be a parliamentary select committee which discusses this. Now, you might ask me: Will these reports be caught up in partisan political debates? They don’t need to, as these recommendations impact people on an individual level, and they could serve to really benefit people.