Resolved: student reinstated after unfair expulsion without being heard

Resolved: student reinstated after unfair expulsion without being heard

Published January 20, 2026

The complaint

The complainant is a student enrolled in a course on Residential and Day Care Work offered by Malta University Enterprises in collaboration with the Faculty for Social Wellbeing of the University of Malta. He joined the course in October 2025.

By letter dated 14 November 2025, the student was summarily expelled from the course for allegedly making serious threats and insults towards a lecturer during a lecture. The expulsion letter was issued without the student being heard or given the opportunity to explain his conduct.

The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on 27 November 2025, alleging a breach of basic procedural fairness and natural justice.

Facts and findings

The investigation established that during a lecture held on 6 November 2025, which focused on the subject of anger, the complainant made remarks referring to violent conduct towards the lecturer. These remarks were reported by the lecturer to Malta University Enterprises, the Faculty Dean, and the police.

Following the report, the Dean determined that the student was not fit to continue the course. Without any formal charge being laid and without hearing the student’s version of events, a decision was taken to expel him. It remained unclear who precisely took the expulsion decision, as responsibility appeared to be shared between different offices within the institution.

The investigation confirmed that the student was never afforded the opportunity to be heard prior to the decision. The complainant consistently maintained that the remarks were made in jest and without any intention to threaten or cause harm.

While criminal proceedings were initiated separately following a police report, the Commissioner for Education noted that the complaint before the Ombudsman’s Office concerned the administrative decision taken by Malta University Enterprises. The issue under investigation was whether the expulsion complied with the requirements of good administration and the principles of natural justice.

The Commissioner found that the institution failed to follow any clear, independent procedure for assessing allegations of extreme misconduct and imposed the most severe sanction without due process.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Commissioner for Education concluded that the complaint was justified and sustained. The summary expulsion of the student without giving him an opportunity to be heard constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice and amounted to maladministration under the Ombudsman Act.

The Commissioner recommended that the student be immediately reinstated in the course. It was further recommended that Malta University Enterprises establish a proper and independent procedure to assess allegations of serious misconduct by students, including the allegation against the complainant, and this independently of any parallel criminal proceedings.

Outcome

Following the Commissioner’s final opinion, Malta University Enterprises accepted the recommendations. The Group Chief Executive Officer confirmed that the student would be reinstated into the course and that an independent committee would be set up to hear his version of events.

The respondent institution also undertook to provide the student with its code of conduct and disciplinary procedures and to formalise an independent process for dealing with allegations of serious misconduct in the future.