Student expelled over alleged threats must be reinstated, Ombudsman says

The Office of the Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by a student who was summarily expelled from a University of Malta–affiliated course after allegedly making violent remarks towards a lecturer, ruling that the expulsion breached basic principles of natural justice.

The complainant was enrolled in a Residential and Day Care Work course offered by Malta University Enterprises (MUE) in collaboration with the University of Malta’s Faculty for Social Wellbeing, which he joined in October 2025.

On 14 November 2025, the student was expelled from the course by letter, accused of making “serious threats and insults” towards a lecturer during a lecture held on 6 November 2025. The letter was issued on behalf of MUE and signed by a member of the University of Malta’s legal office.

The student filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on 27 November 2025, arguing that he was expelled without being given the opportunity to explain or defend himself.

According to the ombudsman’s investigation, the incident occurred during a lecture on anger management, when the student allegedly stated that if he did not obtain a pass mark in a particular assignment, he would do to the lecturer what a serial killer—previously mentioned during the same lecture—had done to one of his victims, including killing and dismembering her. The comment was allegedly made in front of the entire class.

The lecturer reported the incident to MUE, the Dean of the Faculty for Social Wellbeing, and the police. The Dean subsequently decided that the student was unfit to practise in day care, and within days the student was expelled.

The ombudsman noted that the decision to expel the student was taken without any formal charge being laid and without the student being heard. The investigation also found it unclear who had actually taken the decision to expel him, whether it was MUE’s CEO, the Dean, the University’s legal office, or another authority.

The student has consistently maintained that the remarks were made in jest and without any intent to threaten. He also stated that he was unaware at the time that the lecturer had interpreted his words as a real threat.

Criminal proceedings have since been instituted against the student, based on the lecturer’s police report and the student’s own statement. Those proceedings are expected to be heard by the Court of Magistrates sitting as a court of criminal judicature. However, the ombudsman stressed that the complaint concerned the administrative action taken by MUE, not the criminal case itself.

In his conclusions, the ombudsman found that MUE had acted in breach of the principles of natural justice by failing to give the student an opportunity to be heard before imposing the “extreme sanction” of expulsion. He also criticised the absence of a clear, independent procedure to adjudicate cases of alleged extreme misconduct.

The complaint was therefore upheld.

The ombudsman recommended that the student be immediately reinstated in the course and that Malta University Enterprises establish a proper and independent disciplinary procedure for handling allegations of serious misconduct, irrespective of the outcome of any criminal proceedings

The accused was being represented by lawyer Jose Herrera.