Some might argue that we are a country plagued by many imperfections and inconsistencies in the dynamics of our democracy.
Criticism is levelled against the way government behaves and the way in which the partisan clientele is helped by the friends of friends. But in spite of shortcomings in governance, we have our institutions in place and in a very coherent manner. The powers of the State are distributed among the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. The Judiciary is an independent institution and does not depend on the government of the day. Although judicial functionaries are selected and appointed by the Executive, the judiciary is blindfolded and careful to administer justice in the most impassionate manner.

Apart from these three pillars on which our democratic set-up rests, the citizen has other safeguards to protect his interests. These organs of the State have as their common denominator their full independence from “any person or authority”.
So it was blasphemous for me to hear that Government wants to investigate the Auditor General in connection with the inquiry he made into the Voice of the Mediterranean (VOM). The radio station was badly administered and more than Lm 1 million were squandered. Instead of the government asking the public for an apology for the way its taxes were mishandled, we are witnessing a vile attack on one of our institutions.
The Auditor’s General office has been strengthened by consent of the two parties represented in Parliament. Way back in 1974, when the Republican Constitution was promulgated, the Auditor General could be appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. In 1997, the Office of the Auditor General was reinforced by the fact that the Auditor General is now appointed by the President acting on a resolution of the House of Representatives having the support of at least two thirds of all the members of the House. The Auditor can be appointed for a maximum of two terms of five years each. The Constitution spells out in the most emphatic way that the Auditor General is an official of the House of Representatives meaning that he reports directly to the House, and not to any Minister or government. This is consonant with the nature of the independence of his Office. The most important provision of the Constitution relating to the functions of the Auditor General is section 108 (12) which states that “in the exercise of his functions the Director of Audit SHALL NOT be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority”. (My emphasis)

This is the hallmark of the Auditor’s General independence and no Minister can investigate the way in which the Auditor General carries out his functions. Notary Charles Mangion was correct in saying that Minister Austin Gatt’s affront to the Auditor General was anti-Constitutional and he took the right decision not to be an accomplice to the Government in attacking one of the most important institutions of the State.
Minister Gatt may not like the VOM scandal to be registered in the annals of history as a smear on his government, but no one can deny facts. His government would have been better off if it sacked the person/s responsible for the scandal and never appointed them to another public office. To seek the Auditor’s General blood for a wrong committed by others, is inconsistent with good governance and smacks badly of arrogance.

The attack on the Auditor is not an isolated case. We have witnessed attacks on the jury system by former PM Eddie Fenech Adami, because a judgment did not suit his party’s interests. Magistrates have been unjustly criticised and put under pressure because they found irregularities in government’s workings. The former Ombudsman, Joseph Sammut – a person of great ability and high integrity – was ferociously attacked by government and the Nationalist press. The Electoral Commission, trying to dilute the injustices of gerrymandering and the distortion of the electoral process, was also abused by government speakers. We have had a litany of attacks by government on institutions which in no small way diminished their authority.
The incidents that took place during Richard Muscat’s case and the recent outbursts by Minister Austin Gatt during meetings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) threw into serious doubt the raison d’être of having such a committee. The PAC should be transformed: decisions should no longer be taken by the Government’s majority. The parties represented in Parliament should have equal representation on the Committee, which should be chaired by an independent person nominated jointly by Government and Opposition. As the Committee stands now, it is futile and a comic or tragic farce, call it what you like. In what democratic country is the investigator castigated after conducting an inquiry into allegations of sleaze? The Opposition should persevere on its position in defending the Auditor General.
Something that I cannot understand is how on earth Government believes that the Auditor General should be prompted to act by a resolution of the PAC.

The Auditor General may on his own initiative investigate any government department or any other public authority which administers public funds. Consequently, the Auditor General does not need the permission of the Minister to conduct an inquiry into the finances of Water Services Corporation. It was the Minister who first raised doubts about WSC, so why shy away from the Opposition’s invitation for an investigation by the Auditor General? I reiterate that the Auditor may act on its own initiative irrespective of what the PAC decides. I hope that the attack on the Auditor General is not part of a strategy to silence one of the most important functionaries so protected by our Constitution.