Recent comments in a report by the Permanent Commission Against Corruption (PCAC) suggest that it would be better if reports submitted to it were written by lawyers specialising in criminal law and already contained sufficient evidence to secure a conviction in court. This attitude highlights a significant problem in the fight Malta is supposed to be waging against corruption. It is noteworthy that we read this comment in the same week in which its failure was confirmed by statistics showing that Malta has one of the highest perceptions of corruption in the European Union.
We want to be clear. The members of the PCAC are not at fault. Their role is set by law, not by their personal choice, and the very limited resources they have are decided by government policies. Responsibility therefore lies with the system, not with the individuals who run it.
Nevertheless, the results of the system speak for themselves. In 35 years of its existence, the PCAC has resulted in only one prosecution — and that occurred because the person involved requested a bribe in writing. It is unreasonable to interpret this bare statistic as proof that Malta is free from the stain of corruption. It instead shows that our institutions lack the structural capacity to detect, investigate, and prosecute corruption.
In a healthy democracy, anti-corruption agencies do not create procedural barriers for citizens; they remove them. They promote reporting, shield whistleblowers, and actively and consistently educate the public about how corruption functions and what individuals can do to help combat it. The idea that public complaints must be legally drafted and fully evidenced for court use, without requiring the Commission to do significant work, risks silencing the very people institutions should be empowering to speak.
Malta needs institutional anti-corruption reform aligned with international best practices.
- A specialised anti-corruption institution, independent of government, with the authority and resources to investigate effectively and to take prosecution decisions carried out by specialised prosecutors insulated from political interference or direction.
- Strong whistleblower protection, confidential reporting channels, protection from the moment a first report is made so witnesses do not suffer retaliation, and accessible procedures that require no legal training.
- Systematic verification of income and asset declarations, conflicts of interest, and unexplained wealth of public officials.
- Full transparency and real-time oversight (not only after the fact) of public procurement and concession contracts.
- A duty on institutions to undertake public education initiatives and to encourage citizens to report suspected corruption.
- Parliamentary oversight based on measurable results rather than the formal activity reports (or lack of them) we have today.
The fight against corruption is not an administrative task that can be passively managed by waiting for neatly packaged evidence to arrive by post. We need institutions built to uncover wrongdoing, not to find excuses to be the only ones who do not see it.
Maltese citizens should not have to hire a lawyer just to communicate with the country’s institutions that are supposed to protect them.
The message institutions should send must be simple and clear: if you suspect corruption, speak—we will protect you and act.
Until our structures are reconstructed to fulfil that promise, impunity will persist.