Public authorities cannot simply ignore recommendations, Ombudsman warns

The Parliamentary Ombudsman renewed his call for a parliamentary select committee to investigate cases where public authorities refuse to implement his recommendations, stressing that its effectiveness of the institution depends on structured with authorities.

On Thursday, Parliamentary Ombudsman Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon presented the Ombudsplan 2027 to the Speaker of the House of Representatives Carmelo Abela before it is tabled in parliament.

In his Ombudsplan, the Ombudsman set out his priorities for the coming year, this time with a specific focus on the effectiveness of the Ombudsman’s recommendations and the responsibility of public authorities to engage meaningfully with its findings.

While reiterating that his recommendations are not legally binding, the Ombudsman insisted that public bodies cannot simply disregard them without accountability.

He explained that, in situations where a recommendation is not accepted, public authorities must provide the reasons behind the decision which can be examined in terms of factual basis, legality, rationality, and consistency with the principles of good administration.

When maladministration is identified by the Office of the Ombudsman, he said, a public body is within its rights to disagree with the remedy proposed. However, this disagreement should be open to scrutiny, the Ombudsman added.

Once again, Zammit McKeon called for the establishment of a Select Committee of the House of Representatives to consider final opinions on recommendations which remain unimplemented.

At that, the Ombudsman also repeated several longstanding reform proposals, including pausing legal limitation periods while his office investigates complaints, creating an independent national human rights body, and introducing broader legal protections against discrimination under Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

He also proposed that the Standing Orders of the House should allow such reports to be referred to a parliamentary committee capable of examining the matter and holding the public administration to account.

The Office renewed its call for the right to good administration to be given legal recognition in Malta. This, he explained, would include the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially, fairly, and within a reasonable timeframe, along with the right to be heard before an adverse measure is taken, access to files concerning them, and an obligation on public bodies to provide reasons for their decisions.

The Ombudsplan 2027 also discussed the implementation of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, particularly regarding Screening Regulation.

The regulation provides an Independent Screening Mechanism to ensure respect for fundamental rights during the screening of persons at the EU’s external borders. It also allows te national Ombudspersons and national human rights institutions in the screening process.

The Ombudsman noted that, after discussions with the security ministry, its Office had not been informed of an appointment into Malta’s screening mechanism by the time the Ombudsplan was presented. He added that he also was not invited to participate in its operations.

Moving on, the Ombudsman noted that the performance review accompanying the Ombudsplan indicated continued growth in the public’s use of the Office.

He specified that, between January and August 2026, the Office received 403 complaints. This marked an increase of 4% when compared to the corresponding period in 2025.

At the same time, the increase in requests for assistance increased by 36% over the previous year, with a total of assisted 684 persons whose concerns did not necessarily result in a formal complaint.

The Ombudsman considered this sustained increase in public contact as an indication of greater awareness of its services and growing confidence in in the institution as an accessible source of assistance.

The Ombudsplan 2027 will be discussed again at a later date by the House Business Committee.