Case Study: Claims of unfair promotion practices in the Armed Forces of Malta

Case Study: Claims of unfair promotion practices in the Armed Forces of Malta

Published August 27, 2024

The Case

A Major in the Armed Forces of Malta (AFM) lodged a complaint after he was not promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel despite meeting the eligibility criteria. He claimed the selection process for the promotion was flawed and that he suffered an injustice as a result.

The Investigation

The investigation examined the selection process used for promotions from Major to Lieutenant Colonel within the AFM. The promotion process involved candidates submitting an expression of interest, followed by interviews. The selection was based on the Senior Ranks Appointments Advisory Committee (SRAAC) report, which recommended the top candidates to the Minister for approval. The complainant, who was not among the top-ranked candidates, sought information on his ranking and interview performance but was dissatisfied with the responses and explanations provided by the Commander of the AFM.

Facts and Findings

• The promotion process for 2016 deviated from the more objective processes used in 2011, where written and oral examinations were part of the selection criteria. The 2016 process relied solely on interviews, with no written tests or clear records of interview questions, leading to a less transparent and more subjective evaluation.
• The SRAAC assessed candidates based on seniority, efficiency, and the ability to fill a vacancy. However, there was no clear documentation of how these criteria were applied or how scores were awarded.
• The Ombudsman found that the elimination of written assessments and the lack of a standardised interview process in 2016 increased subjectivity and undermined the fairness of the promotion process.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Ombudsman concluded that the complainant suffered an injustice due to the lack of objectivity in the selection process. The promotion procedure failed to adhere to the transparent and merit-based standards previously established in 2011. While the Ombudsman recognised the injustice, no rectification could be recommended because there was no assurance that the complainant would have been promoted even if the process had been fairer.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Armed Forces of Malta revise its promotion selection process, advocating a return to the more objective criteria used in 2011, which included written assessments and clear, documented interview procedures to ensure fairness, transparency, and meritocracy in future promotions.