Education minister’s gag order slammed by Commissioner

The Commissioner for Education at the Ombudsman’s Office has upheld two formal complaints challenging a directive issued by the Education Ministry led by Clifton Grima, which imposed sweeping restrictions on educators’ freedom to engage with the media.

In a damning report, the Commissioner found that Directive DG DES 28/2024 — which requires prior approval for media appearances and demands conformity with official policy — contravenes fundamental principles of free expression in a democratic society.

The Education Minister recently made headlines when his former chief of staff, Ryan Borg, was heard saying the Minister was “not fit for purpose” in a leak of a private phone conversation in which he harshly criticised Grima. Borg was heard saying: “If he is unaware of the problems he has around him then he should not be in that position.”

Silencing dissent

The complaints were lodged separately by the Executive Head of the Union of Professional Educators (UPE) and a Member of Parliament who also serves as a teacher in the state sector. Both alleged that the directive sought to suppress critical commentary and effectively silence voices from within the profession.

The UPE’s Executive Head filed the complaint in both a personal and representative capacity, warning that the measure would dissuade educators from contributing meaningfully to public discourse on education. The MP echoed those concerns, arguing that the directive coerced teachers into parroting government positions, thereby eroding public trust in education policy.

Both complaints were submitted to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry for Education, Sport, Youth, Research and Innovation (MEYR) in November 2024.

Findings: ‘Doublespeak’ in official guidance

Directive DG DES 28/2024 stipulates that educators must obtain approval before speaking to the media and that any statements made should align with Ministry policy.

While purporting to promote public dialogue, the Commissioner found that the directive in fact imposed conditions that suppressed dissent and discouraged open debate.

The report described the directive as a form of “doublespeak” — appearing to support dialogue while enforcing strict conformity.

It was found to be inconsistent with a previous 2011 directive from the Principal Permanent Secretary, which permits public officers in certain grades to voice personal opinions, provided they are clearly distinguished from official views.

The Commissioner also criticised the requirement for prior authorisation from both line managers and the Director General, noting that the administrative hurdles could exert a “chilling effect” on teachers’ willingness to speak publicly.

A breach of fundamental rights

Rejecting the Ministry’s claim that the directive merely reiterated existing rules, the Commissioner concluded that it imposed fresh restrictions that are incompatible with democratic norms.

Even the older Directive 5, the report notes, falls short of international human rights standards, as it bars public officers from commenting on matters within their own departments — even in a personal capacity.

The Commissioner upheld both complaints under Article 22(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Ombudsman Act (Cap. 385), and recommended that the Ministry revise its guidelines to explicitly protect the rights of educators — particularly non-managerial staff — to speak freely about their profession without fear of reprisal.

The recommendations have not been implemented.

Ministry response and parliamentary referral

In response to the UPE’s complaint, the Ministry disputed the union’s legal standing, asserting that only the majority recognised union could address collective issues.

It reiterated its commitment to the Public Service Management Code (PSMC) as the basis for its policies. A similar response was issued to the MP’s complaint, with the Ministry again citing the PSMC but failing to address the Commissioner’s substantive criticisms.

Following the Ministry’s refusal to implement the recommendations, both final reports were referred to the Prime Minister by the Ombudsman and the Commissioner. No action was taken at Cabinet level. As a result, the reports were tabled in Parliament and made publicly available.