The Honourable Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon,

The Honourable Mr. President of the Assembly,

The Honourable European Ombudsman,

The Honourable Secretary General of the Venice Commission,

Esteemed colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, allow me to express my gratitude to our host, the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta and his team, on this 30th anniversary of the establishment of this institution.

My thanks and gratitude go beyond this event. Over the years, the Ombudsman of Malta has become an international reference point, not only for its leadership within the country, but also for its extraordinary contribution to the international aspect of our work, particularly within the framework of the Mediterranean Association of Ombudsmen. Having held this position for more than eight years, I have witnessed the continuous growth of the influence and reputation of this institution in international forums. This is no easy achievement; on the contrary, it requires a lot of work, dedication, leadership and even sacrifice to be considered a point of reference among counterparts in international networks. For this reason, double congratulations on this anniversary and for the unquestionable reputation.

On the other hand, it is a special privilege to hold this opening speech alongside respected personalities on an ever-current topic: “Promoting good governance in challenging times: The role of the Ombudsman”. For many of us who were here two years ago, discussing a similar topic, it is clear that we have moved from the then-current topic (“The Right to Good Governance: Myth, Aspiration or Reality?”) to promoting good governance in challenging times.

This shows that all our dilemmas regarding myth and aspiration have been overcome, as we have recognized the need for good governance as a necessary reality for our citizens and have given ourselves the role of protecting and strengthening it, even in difficult times.

While recognizing administration as a reality, it is important to emphasize the extraordinary role and contribution played by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which recognized good administration as a human right. Despite its regional character or, in other words, its limited formal validity, only in the European Union, the influence that this provision has had on the conception and practical implementation of good administration is indisputable.

Less enthusiastically, it is time to reflect not only on good administration, but also on the broader concept of the rule of law itself. These two concepts are not parallel lines that run separately; the rule of law constitutes the foundation, while good administration is its living expression in the daily interaction between the state and the citizen. Where the rule of law weakens, good administration also weakens; and where good administration fails, the promise of the rule of law remains unfulfilled. Our task as advocates of the people is to hold these principles together, ensuring that legality does not remain only on paper, but is actually applied in every administrative decision that affects the lives of citizens.

With this in mind, I would like to share with you some of the latest findings on the state of the rule of law in Europe. In Professor Laurent Pech’s recent analysis of the rule of law regression (presented at the hearing of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (PACE) on the “Update of the Venice Commission Rule of Law Checklist”, Paris, 8 September 2025), it is highlighted that since 2016, around 77% of the countries analysed have experienced a regression in the rule of law. Updated studies call this process “rule of law regression”. This is a global trend that should be taken seriously as a warning signal in our work as advocates for the people.

Recent events, such as the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza, clearly show that armed conflict and violence can accelerate the regression of the rule of law and human rights, through attacks on civilians, mass displacement, the weakening of judicial guarantees and the normalization of power in emergency situations. These crises remind us that when the basic architecture of legality is shaken, the protection of rights falls to alarming levels. At the same time, any credible step towards reducing tensions and a sustainable peace process in Gaza is a good development; if supported by unconditional humanitarian access and genuine accountability, it can have a direct positive impact on the protection of the rule of law and human rights. For ombudsman institutions, even when such conflicts extend beyond our formal jurisdiction, they test internal resilience and public trust, underscoring why our vigilance, independence and insistence on legality must not waver.

This is where our role as people’s advocates comes in. We are the bridge between citizens and the administration, but today we must also be the mirror of the system. We have at our disposal powerful instruments for diagnosis and action. The Venice Commission’s Rule of Law Checklist is our gold standard: a set of issues and indicators covering legality, legal certainty, prevention of abuse of power, equality before the law/non-discrimination, and access to justice, which are at the heart of this list. This instrument was adopted at the 106th session of the Commission (11–12 March 2016) and was conceived precisely to make it possible to measure and compare the rule of law. Perhaps now is the time for the updated version of this list to also include as a standard the application of the Venice Principles for Ombudsman institutions.

However, today it is not enough to measure the law “on paper” alone. We should also measure the gap between the law on paper and the law in practice, the approach that is already being proposed for updating the Checklist: integrating lessons from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the regression of the rule of law, questioning authoritarian tactics in legislation and the use of powers in emergency situations, and above all, capturing non-legal developments that undermine standards, from political pressures to smear campaigns against judges.

In essence, good administration is not a technical rule, but represents the moral promise of the state to its citizens. We, as advocates for the people, must turn this promise into a full, enforceable and measurable right. We must not allow silence, delays and lack of reasoning to become the norm. We must defend not only the “legal framework”, but also the concrete experience of citizens, at the service counter, on the digital portal, before the regulatory authority and in the courtroom.

Let us use this conference to come up with a simple but strong commitment: from principles to results. To measure, to publish, to correct, to persevere. Only in this way can we rebuild trust, the cornerstone of a functioning democracy.