The government has formally tabled amendments to the MPs’ Code of Ethics that would abolish the requirement for separate ministerial declarations of assets, effectively reducing the level of transparency currently imposed on members of Cabinet, including the Prime Minister.
The amendments were presented to Parliament’s Standards Committee by Justice Minister Jonathan Attard, who indicated they were intended to strengthen transparency rules governing elected officials. However, the proposed changes would do the opposite: they would remove the longstanding obligation for ministers to file a more detailed declaration of assets and income separate from the standard declaration submitted by all MPs.
Instead, under the proposed framework, all members of Parliament, whether serving in government or opposition, would submit the same generic declaration form.
This means that ministers and the Prime Minister would no longer be required to provide the additional financial disclosures that have historically applied to members of the executive.
The amendments were presented to the committee without prior consultation with the Speaker of the House or members of the opposition. The opposition Nationalist Party has yet to take a formal position on the proposed changes, stating through its representative Mark Anthony Sammut that its parliamentary group must first discuss the matter internally after being taken by surprise by their tabling.
The government does not require opposition backing to introduce the changes. With its parliamentary majority, the Labour administration could approve the amendments through a simple vote in Parliament.
In practice, the proposed reform would formalise a system that has already been implemented by Prime Minister Robert Abela, in breach of the code of ethics, over the past two years.
For decades, Maltese ministers have submitted two separate declarations: one as members of parliament and another more detailed disclosure as members of the Cabinet. These ministerial declarations traditionally included information about income, financial investments and assets held by ministers and their spouses and were regularly tabled in Parliament and made public.
This practice was abruptly halted by Abela’s administration.
Over the past two years, the Prime Minister has refused to publish ministers’ declarations of assets, breaking with a transparency tradition that had been followed for around 30 years.
Attempts by The Shift to obtain copies of the latest declarations through Freedom of Information requests were rejected by the Office of the Prime Minister.
It later emerged that Abela had instructed his ministers to stop filing the separate ministerial declarations altogether and instead submit only the standard declaration required from MPs.
The move triggered concern within oversight institutions.
Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi recently wrote to Abela expressing serious alarm about the unannounced changes.
In his letter, the Commissioner warned that the new approach represents a significant rollback of transparency safeguards surrounding the executive branch. According to information provided to his office by Cabinet Secretary Ryan Spagnol, ministers started submitting only a single simplified declaration form identical to that used by ordinary MPs.
The Commissioner noted that the generic declaration form does not include key information previously required from ministers, such as detailed income disclosures and financial investments held by them or their spouses.
“This is a setback for transparency in public life and sends a very negative message,” Azzopardi wrote.
He also highlighted another major change: none of the declarations, either those of MPs or ministers, are currently being published, meaning the public can no longer access them as they once did.
While the Government presents these amendments as improvements, in reality they represent a clear regression, particularly when compared with the standards applied in the United Kingdom, whose parliamentary practices have traditionally served as a benchmark for the Maltese Parliament.
In the United Kingdom, ministers are subject to stricter disclosure requirements than ordinary Members of Parliament. Under the Ministerial Code, ministers are required to declare financial interests that could give rise to conflicts with their official duties, including relevant interests held by their spouses or partners. These declarations are periodically published in the List of Ministers’ Interests, ensuring transparency and enabling meaningful public scrutiny of potential conflicts involving members of the executive.
By contrast, the Government’s proposed approach falls short of these established standards of transparency and accountability, weakening safeguards that are essential for maintaining public trust in those exercising executive power.
Sign up to our newsletter Stay in the know
"*" indicates required fields
Tags
#ethics
#Jonathan Attard
#parliament
#Standards Commissioner
#transperancy
dan xi bniedem ta halliel hu.
tafu tisthu bobby and spouse.
Kif ma tisthux mil poplu malti?
X jisthu!! U juruk bic-car ghalfejn qeghdin fil-gvern! Skop wiehed, biex saru miljunarji!
DAMNING PROOF THAT ABELA AND WIFE HAVE A LOT TO HIDE AND HE IS USING THIS LEGISLATION TO DO SO.
gOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT IS HIDDEN AND HOW MUCH OF IT IS LEGAL.
These amendments will sail through without as much as a whimper from a cowardly and irrelevant “opposition”.
Imagine had the PN in government made such a scandalous proposition, all hell would have broken loose, with labour exponents taking to the streets avowing “Issa daqshekk”!
But with Labour in government every atrocity becomes acceptable to a comatose electorate. While one expects no better from a criminal organisation disguised as a political party in government, the PN’s total abdication of its duty as Opposition on issues of accountability, good governance and the rule of law is sad indeed.
Let us not elude ourselves… Democracy in Malta is dead in the water…
Was the decision not to file for the past two years in any way related to the MIDI Bonds? It would be interesting to see if any minister or MP had a personal investment interest in those bonds and thus in the decision to settle out of court for 47 million rather than evict for breach of contract.
Il-poplu ghadu ma fehem xejn jew ma jridtx jifhem! Dal gvern kwazi kull politiku qieghed hemm biex jaghmlu l business u kwazi kollha qeghdin business fis-settur tal-kostruzzjoni! Ghalfejn tahsbu li dal bini kolluw gennu lil kullhadd jiddejjen biex jikri?? U ibigu l barrani ha jikri?? Qeghdin biss jissalvagwardjaw l intereressi taghhom u lil poplu bellawielu ghal ekonomija b sahhitha! Imma l poplu qed jaghmel bhalhom! L kantun kollox u addio l bqija!!