Speech by the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta during the international conference 'The Evolution of the Ombudsman Mandate: From Complaint Handling to Systemic Impact' - Nicosia, Cyprus

Speech by the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta during the international conference 'The Evolution of the Ombudsman Mandate: From Complaint Handling to Systemic Impact' - Nicosia, Cyprus

Published November 11, 2026

The Evolution of the Ombudsman Mandate:

From Complaint Handling to Systemic Impact

Speech by the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta

Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon

Ombudsman of Malta 

 Nicosia – November 2026

Dear colleagues

Good morning

It is often said that public institutions must keep moving forward or else risk becoming irrelevant. This applies to the Ombudsman as well. 

Our institution was set up not just to investigate and redress individual grievances against the public administration, but its deeper and most significant purpose has always been to safeguard fairness in the administration of public services.

This matter is all the more important today and is becoming all the more essential.

The administration of Government has become extensive, more specialised, increasingly digital and more often automated. Government interests extend into areas that were previously untapped — artificial intelligence, environmental governance, cybersecurity, migration, climate resilience and complex regulatory frameworks. 

The rule of law binds Government in areas that were unexplored a few years back.  Therefore, the public expects from Government – and rightly so - greater transparency, faster responses and meaningful participation in decisions affecting their lives.

More than in the past, the credibility of Ombudsman institutions today is being weighed and considered by the systemic improvements that the institution is a position to recommend, or which are brought into being as a result of its investigations and/or recommendations: quality rather than quantity,

The primary function of the Ombudsman remains investigations.  Having no one else to turn to, a person who believes that a public authority has acted unfairly in his/her regard will continue to refer the matter to the Ombudsman provided that the Office maintains its independence and impartiality.  The Office has to insist on its investigations with the ultimate aim of providing adequate redress, ensure justice is done and fair treatment secured. No customer care office of Government can substitute the independent function of the Ombudsman.

Every complaint represents a person looking out for fair treatment. Every investigation must therefore ensure that public authority remains accountable, even in cases where an Ombudsman finds that a complaint is unsustainable.

Individual complaints rarely exist in isolation.  They often reveal patterns.  One complaint may expose unclear legislation.  Another may uncover inadequate procedures.  Several similar complaints may reveal systemic delays in responding, deficient staff training, inconsistent decision-making, poor communication or institutional cultures resistant to accountability.

To remain relevant, the Ombudsman has to move from reactive oversight to systemic governance.

Complaints are invaluable sources to plan ahead.  People need institutions capable of objective scrutiny precisely because public administration itself has become all the more complex.  Innovation therefore requires stronger oversight bodies.

Unlike performance indicators or statistical reports, complaints originate directly from those who experience what is negative in the administration of public services.  They reveal realities that internal audits may overlook, often expose unintended consequences in legislation, identify weaknesses in procedures that are not brought to the attention of policymakers by whoever internally has an obligation to oversee, and identify how administrative decisions do affect the everyday lives of people.  When recurring failures become visible and underlying causes are identified, complaint handling becomes an early-warning system for democratic governance.

Perhaps the most significant evolution of the mandate of the Ombudsman has been a growing emphasis on prevention, for the simple reason that justice should not be confined to repairing harm after it occurs.  The most tangible form of administrative justice should be the prevention of maladministration altogether.

Modern Ombuds institutions should devote more attention to looking for and finding shortcomings before they become crises.  This can be done not only through the investigation and handling of individual complaints but also by means of “own initiative” investigations that enable the Ombudsman to proceed independently from the submission of written complaints.  Investigations of this nature (as distinct from individual) investigations are becoming all the more important as their objective is to understand whether public administration systems themselves are producing unfair outcomes.  These investigations include the determination of whether legislation creates administrative uncertainty or unfairness; whether public authorities apply policies consistently; whether digital systems place vulnerable groups at a disadvantage; whether delays reflect isolated inefficiency or structural incapacity; whether administrative culture discourages transparency; whether accountability mechanisms are functioning effectively.

Robust guarantees are a must for the Ombudsman to function well. They are not institutional privileges but democratic necessities.  Nonetheless the Ombudsman must continue to evolve in order to face the challenges that administrative governance has and will continue to bring about. 

We have to take into account that:

• Artificial intelligence increasingly assists administrative decision-making, while promising greater efficiency;
• Algorithms determine eligibility for services;
• Digital platforms manage public interactions;
• Cross-border governance expands and is becoming more complicated ;
• Climate adaptation requires difficult administrative decisions;
• Demographic change places unprecedented pressure upon health and social care systems.

Technology presents both extraordinary opportunities. Innovation is good in principle but careful as new risks could be just round the corner:

• Digital exclusion;
• Automated bias;
• Excessive surveillance; and
• Weak accountability.

Technology cannot be allowed to reduce or put aside altogether the dignity of the person. Nor should efficiency replace fairness. Likewise, innovation should never be understood as replacing principles. The Ombudsman has to put its act together to look out for the pitfalls of innovation to ensure that no one is left behind or remains excluded.

There is another important issue that in future could influence one way or another the performance of the Ombudsman as an institution: the weight given to statistics. 

We are anxious about statistics:

• Number of complaints received;
• Investigations completed;
• Recommendations issued made;
• Recommendations implemented;
• Recommendations not implemented;
• Cases closed.

So well so good.  

The public loves statistics. 

The media as well. 

The political class has a “love/hate” relationship with statistics. 

However, although numbers are important, they remain indicators but are not resolutive.

An Ombudsman whose recommendations remedy recurring maladministration may eventually lead to less complaints.  In contrast, declining complaints may reflect institutional success rather than diminished relevance.  Success should therefore be considered by lasting improvements in public administration.

For this to happen the Ombudsman has to insist on the day by day promotion and application of the principles of good administration.  This requires constructive engagement and the practical resolution of problems that arise when the Ombudsman makes recommendations that can “shake” the system. 

Independent oversight requires courage. Often recommendations challenge established practices.  There are moments when public opinion may favour expediency rather than fairness.  There are circumstances where institutional resistance appears formidable.  An Ombudsman who speaks only when it is comfortable to do so contributes little to democratic governance.

Public authorities are increasingly expected to balance competing interests.  The Ombudsman is there to remind Government that in the administration of public services, decision-making has to remain transparent, participatory, evidence-based and respectful of the rule of law.  Today the protection of rights is not limited to the removal of abuse but should increasingly be understood as being the long-term commitment towards inalienable standards for good governance.

To conclude:

Ombudsman institutions have demonstrated remarkable resilience. That purpose has not changed. By striving for good administration through independent oversight, Ombudsman institutions can strengthen the observance of the rule of law not as an abstract ideal but as the very essence in the lives of people.