In October 2024, the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) in Malta undertook a significant public relations campaign to promote the government’s annual Budget, directing an unprecedented €428,000 of taxpayer funds towards a broad advertising initiative. This figure, while substantial on its own, represents just a fraction of a broader and coordinated government communications strategy tied to the Budget, one that spans multiple ministries and involves direct contracting with private firms.

The publicity drive, launched in conjunction with the annual Budget presentation by Finance Minister Clyde Caruana on 24 October 2024, made extensive use of state resources to promote the Labour government’s agenda. Acting under the leadership of Prime Minister Robert Abela and Principal Permanent Secretary Tony Sultana, the Office of the Prime Minister issued a series of direct orders—largely bypassing open procurement processes—to a limited number of companies, several of which have well-established associations with Labour’s past electoral efforts.

Direct orders and procurement concerns

The public funds were disbursed through direct orders—procurement decisions that bypass competitive bidding—raising questions about transparency, fairness, and accountability. According to records published in the Government Gazette, several of these contracts were awarded to entities known for their association with Labour’s electoral efforts, creating an appearance of preferential treatment and potential conflicts of interest.

Among the companies awarded contracts:

• Ikona Artworks, run by former ONE TV personnel, received €75,000 for creating the Budget branding and for placing advertisements in newspapers and online platforms.
• Pure Concepts, a known favourite for government marketing work, secured €90,000 to manage social media promotion.
• Cowfish Limited, a company owned by Daniel Abela and Claire Cassar, was paid €20,000 for promoting the Budget at bus stops, which are typically frequented by non-voting residents and tourists.
• Sharp Shoot Media, a company owned by Justin Farrugia—who is the brother of former government communications chief Kurt Farrugia—was awarded €25,000 for the production of video content as part of the government’s promotional efforts.
• Ponder & Pitch, a relatively new agency, was paid €23,000 for undisclosed marketing services.

Additional amounts nearing €60,000 were distributed among Tik Services Ltd (owned by Jonathan Haber), Borg Digital, and Border & Co for outdoor advertising, including billboard space.

Growing scale of budget marketing exercises

The annual Budget campaign has grown in scale with each passing year. What was once a routine government communication exercise has become a full-fledged political marketing strategy involving numerous advertising channels. These include traditional media (TV, print, radio), outdoor installations (buses, shelters, billboards), and a wide array of digital content disseminated via social media and websites.

Leaflets and branded merchandise are also routinely distributed, and several online influencers or media portals are believed to be enlisted—either directly or indirectly—to shape favourable public discourse around the Budget.

This growth in scale has prompted concerns among civil society organisations, good governance advocates, and opposition politicians. Many argue that public money should not be used to conduct what is perceived as partisan political advertising, particularly when the beneficiaries of such spending are closely aligned with the ruling party.

Blurring lines between public service and party interests

A central issue highlighted by critics is the perceived overlap between political party messaging and official government communications, raising concerns about the lack of distinction between the two. The timing, tone, and design of promotional materials often reflect political branding associated with the Labour Party, including colour schemes, slogans, and imagery.

The use of public funds to promote messaging that closely resembles election campaign materials raises questions about whether the government is using its institutional power to entrench partisan advantages ahead of the next general election.

Moreover, the companies entrusted with delivering these campaigns are frequently those also seen supporting Labour during electoral periods. There have been multiple credible reports that some of these firms offer their services “gratis” to Labour during elections, effectively making unreported in-kind contributions. These are not always disclosed in the financial declarations submitted to the Electoral Commission, potentially undermining transparency in political financing.

Electoral implications and the timing of promotions

With the government widely expected to call early general elections before summer 2025, the Budget presented in October 2024 may be the last full financial package introduced by the current administration. This adds a strategic dimension to the campaign, reinforcing suspicions that promotional efforts were not merely informative, but also politically motivated.

As anticipation of elections builds, stakeholders expect a sharp increase in public communications activities—raising the possibility that further public funds will be used for similar initiatives. The cumulative cost of such campaigns, if not subjected to stricter oversight, could potentially eclipse figures from previous years.

Legal and ethical considerations surrounding public funds

The use of direct orders to award contracts without a public call for tenders poses both legal and ethical dilemmas. While the government is legally permitted to issue direct orders under specific conditions—such as urgency or technical necessity—the frequency with which this mechanism is used in marketing and promotional contracts has become a point of contention.

Good governance watchdogs, such as the National Audit Office and civil society organisations, have periodically raised the need for reforms to ensure that public procurement is conducted fairly and transparently. Direct orders, when used excessively or for political convenience, may undermine public confidence in government impartiality.

Furthermore, while no evidence has surfaced to indicate unlawful conduct, the appearance of systemic favouritism has prompted calls for greater scrutiny, especially given the monetary value and the concentration of contracts among politically affiliated firms.

Reactions from civil society and the opposition

Members of the Opposition, particularly from the Nationalist Party, have criticised the expenditures as a misuse of taxpayer money. Shadow ministers have called for an independent investigation into how these contracts were awarded and whether public procurement rules were adequately respected.

Civil society organisations have also expressed concern about the apparent weaponisation of public communications, urging the Auditor General and the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life to review the matter.

In response, government representatives have defended the campaign as a legitimate exercise in public information. They argue that the Budget contains important initiatives that affect every citizen, and that clear communication of such policies is a basic government responsibility.

However, critics contend that the content and presentation of these messages—combined with their close resemblance to partisan propaganda—go beyond the bounds of neutral public service announcements.

Calls for transparency and reform

To address public concerns, governance experts have proposed several measures:

• Establishing stricter criteria for the use of direct orders, particularly for marketing and PR services;
• Mandating public disclosure of all contracts above a certain value, regardless of procurement method;
• Creating an independent audit mechanism to assess government communications spending;
• Enforcing stricter reporting standards for political donations, including in-kind contributions during campaigns;
• Separating government communications from party political branding, to maintain institutional neutrality.

Such measures are aimed at ensuring that taxpayer funds are used responsibly and that public communications remain distinct from partisan efforts.

Looking ahead to the next Budget

As Malta moves towards what may be a pre-election Budget cycle in October 2025, all eyes will be on how the government manages its public communications strategy. With heightened scrutiny from both the media and civil society, the administration may face increasing pressure to ensure transparency, legal compliance, and ethical use of public funds.

Regardless of political affiliation, there is growing consensus that public institutions must be held to high standards of accountability, especially in areas as sensitive as public expenditure and democratic integrity.

Conclusion

The Maltese government’s substantial use of public funds—particularly the €428,000 allocated by the Office of the Prime Minister in October 2024—for Budget-related promotional campaigns has reignited longstanding concerns about the blurred lines between state resources and partisan political interests. While it is within a government’s remit to inform the public about its fiscal policies, the method, scale, and beneficiaries of these campaigns suggest a strategy that extends beyond neutral public service messaging.

The repeated use of direct orders, awarded predominantly to firms with historical ties to the Labour Party, calls into question the fairness and transparency of public procurement processes. This not only undermines public trust in governmental institutions but also creates an uneven playing field in the political sphere, particularly when such promotional efforts closely resemble campaign material.

As Malta approaches a likely election cycle in 2025, the increasing politicisation of public communications will require enhanced scrutiny from oversight institutions, journalists, and civil society. Strengthening transparency, enforcing procurement reforms, and ensuring a clear demarcation between government duties and political agendas will be vital to safeguarding democratic integrity and public accountability.

Ultimately, the use of taxpayer funds must reflect the principles of neutrality, fairness, and responsible governance—not serve as an extension of party political machinery.

FAQs

What was the total amount spent by the OPM on Budget promotion in 2024?
The Office of the Prime Minister spent €428,000 in public funds on Budget-related promotion in October 2024 alone.

Who received the largest contract for the Budget promotion campaign?
Pure Concepts received €90,000 for social media promotion, making it one of the largest recipients.

Were these contracts issued through competitive bidding?
No, most contracts were issued through direct orders, bypassing public tender processes.

Why are critics concerned about these promotional expenditures?
Critics argue that taxpayer funds are being used for partisan purposes and that firms with political ties are receiving preferential treatment.

Are the companies involved linked to Labour Party campaigns?
Many of the companies awarded contracts have reportedly supported Labour electoral campaigns, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.

What kind of advertising was used in the campaign?
The campaign employed billboards, social media, leaflets, newspapers, TV, buses, shelters, and digital signage to promote the Budget.

Has there been any official investigation into these expenditures?
As of now, there is no formal investigation, though calls for audits and oversight have been made by the opposition and civil society.

Is it legal for the government to issue direct orders?
Yes, under specific conditions. However, frequent use of direct orders without transparency can raise legal and ethical concerns.

What reforms are being proposed to address these issues?
Proposals include stricter procurement laws, greater transparency, and better separation between government and political communication.

When is the next Budget expected, and will similar spending occur?
The next Budget is anticipated in October 2025, and promotional spending is expected to increase, especially with early elections likely.