The courage to speak and the wisdom to remain silent

The courage to speak and the wisdom to remain silent

Published August 25, 2026

by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon

There are times when, in the interest of the institution, an Ombudsman has to hold back and remain silent when faced with statements made in public, especially in uncontrolled social media experiences.  There are other times when an Ombudsman has to show publicly that he is resolute by speaking clearly for all to understand and act without fear. 

There is nothing conflictual in such an approach.  Rather this perspective represents two sides of institutional responsibility: the values of courage and wisdom.

Several are the instances today where public offices operate in a social environment inclined towards reactive immediacy. Every debate, real, perceived or otherwise instigated, consequential to events happening or otherwise, could instinctively generate instant reactions. But instinct should never be a reason or consideration to react, certainly not where public constitutional offices like the Ombudsman are concerned.  An Ombudsman does not speak always on anything.

The circumstances where the Ombudsman has a positive institutional duty to speak include: where fundamental principles of good administration are being disregarded by public authorities without reason verging on the violation of the human rights of persons; where persons are treated unfairly; where systemic maladministration persists despite repeated warnings; where administrative authority is exercised arbitrarily; where vulnerable persons cannot effectively defend themselves; when the disadvantaged have little power to make themselves heard; when silence could reasonably be understood as being acceptance of conduct that should be rejected in principle; wherever raising an awareness in the promotion of human rights and vigilance on the protection of human rights so require.  When an Ombudsman speaks, intervention is not casual, but necessary especially to prevent issues of public interest from crossing red lines. 

When an Ombudsman decides to remain silent where such fundamentals are at stake, the Office risks diminishing the purpose for its existence. An Ombudsman will not seek conflict for its own sake. Firmness is constructive in its essence. Protecting the dignity and credibility of the Office is legitimate. An Ombudsman should not speak simply to be heard. 

The Ombudsman may cause discomfort from time to time whenever scrutiny proves effective. There are moments when the institution must stand visibly and unmistakably for the principles of fairness and justice.  One principle should remain the same and always: whether to speak or remain silent should never be dictated by fear of consequences but by the mandate of the institution. 

The Ombudsman is effective and strong in principle and action because, within its mandate,  the institution stands for administrative justice without fear or favour.  This approach has been consistently the case in this country, because Ombudsmen (past and present), Commissioners (past and present), Investigators (past and present) and Office staff in all grades have placed commitment to justice, vis-à-vis the public service and the public administration, especially where the vulnerable are concerned, at the forefront of their operations, always heads high and without expecting recognition in return.

There are times when protecting the institution means refusing to be drawn into controversy. There will be other moments when patience, confidentiality and silence serve justice best.  Restraint gives substance to the institution.  If an Ombudsman responds to every criticism or enters every public debate touching even remotely upon his mandate, the distinction between independent oversight and ordinary public controversy could be made difficult to determine.  An independent institution will never allow itself to be drawn into a controversy merely because someone invites or provokes the institution to enter the arena.  There is dignity in restraint. Silence is not equivalent to uncertainty, weakness or acquiescence. Institutional authority requires both restraint and courage.

The strength of moral authority (as alternative to coercive authority) is central to the Ombudsman.  Strength derives through the exercise of restraint and silence where necessary.  There is also strength when the Ombudsman publicly insists that there are principles on which the institution cannot compromise.  Silence protects moral authority when speaking would be out of place, premature, unnecessary or institutionally inappropriate. The institution does not acquire authority merely because the law establishes that authority but is patiently built over time through independence, fairness, consistency and courage.

There is a time for institutional silence and a time for an institutional voice. Wisdom lies in knowing the difference.  Independence lies in making that choice without fear.

This article was published on newsbook.com.mt on 25th August 2026