Gozo ministry procurement practices draw renewed scrutiny

The Ministry for Gozo has once again come under public and institutional scrutiny following the award of a direct order to the Federation of Hunters and Trappers to provide bird ringing services for scientific research carried out on behalf of the Wild Birds Regulation Unit. The decision forms part of a wider pattern of procurement practices within the ministry that have raised ongoing concerns about transparency, governance standards and adherence to public procurement rules.

According to official government records, the contract was issued through a direct order after a competitive tender process failed to result in a successful award. While direct orders are legally permissible under specific circumstances, their frequency and structure within the Gozo Ministry have prompted questions from civil society organisations, environmental groups and governance observers.

The issue is not limited to a single contract. Data published in the government gazette covering the latter half of 2024 and the first six months of 2025 reveal that the ministry issued hundreds of direct orders over a twelve month period, with total expenditure exceeding €2 million. Many of these contracts were issued repeatedly to the same entities or structured in a manner that kept individual payments just below the €10,000 threshold that would otherwise require an open tender.

Bird ringing contract and environmental sensitivities

The engagement of the Federation of Hunters and Trappers to carry out bird ringing has proven particularly sensitive given the long standing tension between hunting interests and environmental protection advocates in Malta. Bird ringing is generally regarded as a scientific activity intended to support conservation research, migration monitoring and data collection for regulatory purposes.

Environmental organisations have expressed concern about the optics of assigning such work to a federation that represents hunters and trappers. These groups have frequently criticised what they describe as inadequate enforcement against illegal hunting practices. It is important to note that the Federation of Hunters and Trappers has consistently rejected allegations that its members engage in illegal activity and has publicly stated its commitment to operating within the law.

The ministry has not publicly indicated that any legal or regulatory breach occurred in the awarding of the contract. However critics argue that decisions of this nature risk undermining public confidence in environmental governance even where procedural requirements may have been met.

Heavy reliance on direct orders

The bird ringing contract sits within a broader procurement pattern that has been repeatedly highlighted by the National Audit Office in past reports. While the ministry has not disputed the factual existence of these direct orders, questions persist about whether the cumulative effect of such practices aligns with the principles of open competition, value for money and accountability that underpin public procurement law.

Official data indicates that many contracts were issued to the same service providers over short intervals. In some cases payments were reportedly issued every two weeks with each individual amount falling just below the tender threshold. Although this approach is not automatically unlawful, governance experts have long argued that such structuring may undermine the spirit of procurement regulations designed to ensure fair competition.

The ministry has not published detailed justifications for each direct order beyond the brief descriptions required by law.

Citadel Video Communications and long standing ties

Among the most prominent beneficiaries of Gozo Ministry direct orders is Citadel Video Communications, a media production company owned by Alvin Scicluna and his son George. George Scicluna is a cousin of Gozo Minister Clint Camilleri, a relationship that has drawn public attention despite no allegation of illegality having been formally established.

Citadel Video Communications has received tens of thousands of euros in direct orders over recent months. This continues a long standing professional relationship between the company and successive Maltese governments stretching back decades. Supporters of the company point to its experience and production capacity while critics argue that repeated direct orders risk entrenching preferential access to public funds.

In addition to production contracts, the company has also benefited from ministry funded sponsorships for programmes broadcast on the Public Broadcasting Services.

PBS sponsorships and questions of state aid

One sponsorship in particular has attracted attention. A €7,000 payment was issued for the programme “Għawdex Illum”, which is already funded by PBS and produced by Citadel Video Communications. Observers have questioned whether this arrangement could amount to double state support for the same programme.

No judicial or regulatory authority has ruled that this specific sponsorship constitutes illegal state aid. However governance advocates argue that such arrangements warrant closer examination to ensure compliance with public funding rules and broadcasting regulations.

PBS has not publicly indicated that any internal rules were breached in relation to this sponsorship.

Public broadcaster figures and private contracts

The ministry’s list of direct orders also includes contracts awarded to individuals closely associated with the public broadcaster.

Keith Chetcuti, the chief executive of PBS, received several contracts through his private events company iCAN Ltd. These included a €25,000 direct order to provide interpretation services during a conference held in Gozo. While public officials are permitted to own private companies, such arrangements often attract scrutiny regarding potential conflicts of interest.

Another notable contract was awarded to Quinton Scerri, a current affairs presenter on PBS’s programme called “Popolin”. Through his company NRGY Concepts Ltd, Scerri received a €41,000 direct order to host an international food festival on the island.

PBS’s internal code of ethics states that current affairs presenters should not engage in government contracts. Neither PBS nor the individuals concerned have publicly stated that any breach occurred. Nonetheless the situation has raised questions about the practical enforcement of ethical guidelines within public institutions.

Repetitive payments to voluntary organisations

The list of direct orders further includes nearly €200,000 in payments to the Tal-Fuklar Folk Group, a small non governmental organisation based in Gozo. The payments were issued for what was described as the management of the Xewkija windmill, a heritage site.

According to published data, these payments were made repeatedly over a prolonged period, often in amounts just below the tender threshold. Critics argue that while heritage management is a legitimate public function, the procurement structure used in this case raises questions about transparency and proportionality.

There has been no public allegation that the organisation failed to deliver the contracted services.

Contracts involving senior public officials

Additional scrutiny has focused on direct orders awarded to Claude Mallia, the chief executive of Malta Air Traffic Services. Mallia reportedly received over €30,000 in direct orders to provide architectural services to the Gozo Ministry.

Government policy generally restricts senior public officials from engaging in outside paid work due to concerns about conflicts of interest and time commitments. The ministry has not publicly clarified whether specific exemptions or approvals were granted in this case.

As with other contracts listed, no court or oversight body has determined that these arrangements were unlawful.

Other notable direct orders

Beyond individual cases, the ministry’s procurement records include a wide range of other expenditures. These include a €100,000 direct order to G7 Services Ltd, the owners of the media outlet MaltaDaily, to organise an annual end of year event. The outlet is widely regarded as government friendly although this characterisation reflects public perception rather than any official designation.

The records also show repeated direct orders for security services, payments for office rentals from religious institutions and the purchase of a painting from Obelisk Auctions for €20,121. Each of these transactions is individually lawful under certain conditions but collectively they have contributed to concerns about the overall procurement culture within the ministry.

National Audit Office warnings

The National Audit Office has repeatedly criticised the Gozo Ministry for irregular procurement practices in past reports. These findings have highlighted issues such as excessive reliance on direct orders, insufficient documentation and inadequate justification for departures from competitive procedures.

Despite these warnings, similar patterns appear to have continued into 2024 and 2025. The ministry has not publicly indicated that it intends to implement structural reforms to its procurement processes.

The absence of enforcement action does not in itself establish wrongdoing. However repeated audit observations often signal systemic weaknesses that warrant corrective measures.

Governance and public confidence

At the heart of the controversy lies a broader question of public trust. Procurement processes are not solely technical exercises. They are mechanisms through which public authorities demonstrate fairness, accountability and stewardship of public funds.

When direct orders become the norm rather than the exception, even lawful decisions can erode confidence in public administration. This is particularly true in small jurisdictions where personal and professional networks are closely intertwined.

Legal compliance alone may not be sufficient to address perceptions of favouritism or institutional complacency.

Conclusion

The Gozo Ministry’s extensive use of direct orders has once again placed its procurement practices under the spotlight. While none of the contracts described have been judicially determined to be unlawful, the cumulative pattern raises legitimate questions about governance standards, transparency and adherence to the principles of open competition.

The engagement of the Federation of Hunters and Trappers for bird ringing services, alongside contracts awarded to media companies, public broadcaster figures and senior officials, illustrates the breadth of concerns surrounding procurement decisions within the ministry.

Repeated warnings from the National Audit Office underscore the need for a reassessment of current practices. Without clearer safeguards, stronger oversight and a renewed commitment to competitive procurement, similar controversies are likely to persist.

Ultimately the issue extends beyond individual contracts. It touches on public confidence in how state resources are allocated and whether institutional lessons from past criticism are being meaningfully applied.

FAQs

What is a direct order in public procurement?
A direct order is a procurement method that allows a public authority to award a contract without an open tender under specific legal conditions.

Why has the Gozo Ministry faced criticism over direct orders?
The ministry has issued a high number of direct orders over a short period leading to concerns about transparency and competition.

Is the Federation of Hunters and Trappers accused of illegal activity?
The federation denies allegations of illegal practices and no court ruling has established wrongdoing in relation to this contract.

Are direct orders illegal under Maltese law?
Direct orders are legal in limited circumstances but excessive use can undermine procurement principles.

What role does the National Audit Office play?
The National Audit Office reviews public spending and issues reports highlighting irregularities and governance risks.

Why are media related contracts controversial?
They can raise questions about conflicts of interest and the appropriate use of public funds for broadcasting and promotion.

Did PBS rules prohibit the contracts mentioned?
PBS has ethical guidelines but no official finding has confirmed a breach in the cases cited.

Is there evidence of corruption?
No judicial authority has ruled that corruption occurred in relation to these contracts.

Why is the €10,000 threshold significant?
Contracts above this amount generally require an open tender under procurement rules.

What reforms have been proposed?
Observers have called for stronger oversight clearer justifications and reduced reliance on direct orders.