Education Ministry’s media directive ruled unlawful

In a significant ruling that may affect civil freedoms and the principles of democratic oversight in Malta, the Commissioner for Education at the Office of the Ombudsman has supported two official grievances challenging a contentious policy introduced by the Ministry for Education, Sport, Youth, Research and Innovation (MEYR), under the leadership of Minister Clifton Grima. The directive, known as DG DES 28/2024, mandates that educators obtain prior authorisation before engaging with the media and requires any public statements to align with the Ministry’s official policies.

The Commissioner concluded that the directive not only discourages open discourse among educators but also constitutes a significant infringement upon the constitutional right to freedom of expression, particularly for public officials operating in a democratic context.

Background to the directive

In November 2024, two separate complaints were lodged challenging the legality and implications of Directive DG DES 28/2024. One complaint was filed by the Executive Head of the Union of Professional Educators (UPE), acting both on behalf of the union and in a personal capacity. The second came from a sitting Member of Parliament, who also serves as a state-employed educator. Both complaints were filed with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry, arguing that the directive was an overt attempt to silence internal criticism and control narratives emerging from within Malta’s education system.

The directive in question compels all educators to seek official approval before giving interviews, writing opinion pieces, or participating in any media activity, irrespective of whether their comments are personal or professional. Further, it stipulates that any commentary must conform to government policy — a requirement that, according to the complainants, effectively eliminates independent thought and meaningful dialogue.

Findings of the Commissioner

Following an extensive investigation, the Commissioner found the directive to be incompatible with democratic norms, administrative fairness, and international standards on freedom of expression. The report was clear in its language, describing the directive as a form of “doublespeak” — ostensibly promoting dialogue while actually imposing rigid constraints that undermine it.

In particular, the Commissioner determined that the requirement for dual approval — both from the educator’s direct line manager and the Director General — constitutes an undue administrative burden. This structure, according to the findings, creates a “chilling effect”, discouraging educators from engaging in public discourse for fear of reprisal or bureaucratic retribution.

The directive was also deemed inconsistent with a standing 2011 circular from the Principal Permanent Secretary, which permits certain public officers to express personal opinions, provided these are not presented as official positions. The current Ministry directive, by contrast, offers no such distinction or protection.

Contradiction with existing public service codes

The Ministry of Education justified the directive by referencing its consistency with the Public Service Management Code (PSMC). However, the Commissioner found that both the new directive and the older Directive 5 fall short of international human rights obligations, particularly those articulated in the European Convention on Human Rights and related jurisprudence on public sector expression.

Directive 5, which remains in effect, bars civil servants from speaking on issues related to their own departments even in a personal capacity. The Commissioner found this aspect deeply problematic, particularly in light of evolving interpretations of public accountability and democratic transparency.

Political context and ministerial leadership questioned

The controversy surrounding the directive has unfolded against a broader backdrop of criticism targeting Minister Clifton Grima’s leadership. In a notable leak that preceded the Commissioner’s ruling, Ryan Borg, Grima’s former Chief of Staff, was recorded in a private phone conversation expressing scathing criticism of the Minister. Borg allegedly remarked that Grima was “not fit for purpose,” further stating: “If he is unaware of the problems he has around him, then he should not be in that position.”

While unrelated to the directive per se, the leaked comments added to growing public scrutiny of the Ministry’s operations, with observers noting a pattern of opaque policy-making and reduced stakeholder engagement.

Legal and institutional implications

The Commissioner found merit in both complaints, relying on Article 22(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Ombudsman Act (Chapter 385) to support the decision. These provisions empower the Commissioner to investigate administrative practices that are unjust, oppressive, or contrary to law or democratic practice.

In his recommendations, the Commissioner advised the Ministry to revise its internal guidelines to explicitly protect educators’ rights to freedom of expression. This includes ensuring that non-managerial teaching staff may participate in public dialogue about educational matters without requiring prior approval and without being forced to adhere to official positions.

To date, the Ministry has not acted on these recommendations. In response to the UPE’s submission, it contested the union’s legal standing, arguing that only the majority-recognised union may represent collective interests. Regarding the MP’s complaint, the Ministry reiterated its reliance on the PSMC but failed to respond to the central legal and ethical issues raised by the Commissioner.

Escalation to Parliament and Prime Minister

Due to the Ministry's refusal to act on the recommendations, the final reports were officially forwarded to the Prime Minister and later presented before Parliament. These reports are now part of the public record. However, no Cabinet-level intervention has followed, and the directive remains in force as of mid-2025.

This lack of executive action has drawn criticism from civil society organisations, educators’ associations, and opposition lawmakers, who argue that the government’s inertia is part of a broader trend of administrative control over public discourse.

Broader concerns about public sector silencing

The situation raises significant concerns about the scope of acceptable speech for public employees in Malta. Critics argue that while it is reasonable for governments to maintain order and protect sensitive information, the blanket suppression of public commentary — particularly on matters of professional expertise — undermines democratic governance and weakens public trust.

Education professionals, in particular, are often the most informed voices on challenges within the sector. Limiting their ability to share observations or critique policy could deprive the public of valuable insights, especially during a time of increasing debate around curriculum standards, teacher shortages, and student wellbeing.

Recommendations for a way forward

Experts in administrative law and public governance have urged the Ministry to reconsider its approach. Several legal scholars have advocated for a revised directive that distinguishes between official representation and individual commentary, consistent with best practices in democratic jurisdictions. Moreover, clearer protections for whistleblowers and internal critics would enhance transparency and accountability.

Given the Ombudsman’s findings and the public interest at stake, legislative reform may also be warranted. Parliament could move to codify the rights of public educators to participate in public dialogue, especially when their input can contribute to more effective and inclusive policy-making.

Conclusion

The ruling by the Commissioner for Education underscores a fundamental principle: in a democracy, public servants — particularly those in education — must be able to contribute freely to societal discourse without fear of reprisal or censorship. The Education Ministry’s Directive DG DES 28/2024 represents a significant departure from that ideal, raising serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and the protection of constitutional rights in Malta.

Unless the Ministry reconsiders its position, and unless Parliament takes a more active role in defending democratic norms, the silencing of professional educators may become a dangerous precedent — one that weakens not only the education system but also the broader democratic fabric of the country.

FAQs

What is Directive DG DES 28/2024?
It is a directive from Malta's Education Ministry requiring educators to obtain approval before engaging with media and mandating alignment with official policy.

Who filed complaints against the directive?
The complaints were filed by the Executive Head of the Union of Professional Educators and a Member of Parliament who is also a public school teacher.

What did the Commissioner for Education find?
The Commissioner concluded that the directive unlawfully restricted educators’ freedom of expression and recommended its revision.

What legal provisions were cited?
The complaints were upheld under Article 22(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Ombudsman Act (Cap. 385).

Did the Education Ministry accept the findings?
No, the Ministry did not implement the recommendations and maintained its position based on the Public Service Management Code.

What are the main criticisms of the directive?
Critics argue it suppresses dissent, discourages open debate, and coerces educators into promoting only government narratives.

Was this matter brought before Parliament?
Yes, the Ombudsman referred the reports to the Prime Minister, and they were tabled in Parliament but not acted upon by the Cabinet.

Is this directive consistent with international standards?
No, the Commissioner found it incompatible with international human rights standards and democratic practices.

What impact does the directive have on educators?
It creates a chilling effect, deterring educators from participating in public discourse and weakening trust in educational governance.

What is the broader significance of this case?
It raises serious questions about government transparency, public accountability, and freedom of speech for public sector employees.