Ethics and right of fair hearing

In recent months we saw various accusations towards professionals that many see as uncalled for and unprecedented. Everyone is responsible for his actions but a fundamental principle in a democracy and in any country that has at heart human rights is the right of fair hearing.

The way the Malta Institute of Accountants recently handled issues regarding its members may have overseen this fundamental principle.

In the last weeks, the MIA made a call to its members to appoint a disciplinary committee to investigate matters related to some of its members. Without the committee being appointed, its president is reported to have stated publicly against whom these procedures were being taken. One may agree or may not agree with this approach. The fact is that the way it was reported gave the impression that the conclusion of such proceedings is a foregone one. At least at the eye of the general public this may have done a lot of reputable damage to these persons who were not as yet given the chance to give their version. This was done in a delicate moment in the country.

All professional bodies have standards and ethics that anyone who is a member should follow. Consequently, members may be subject to questions on their doings. However, no professional body who abides by the fundamental rule of fair hearing and that promotes ethics can condemn its own members in the eye of the general public before proper proceedings have been concluded.

Various persons in the accountancy circles have questioned this attitude towards individual members whereby there may have been others that are subject to similar proce- dures and have not been publicised in such a manner. It is unclear why these persons were singled out.

If, and when, the said disciplinary body is appointed, its members have been already influenced on the direction that the Institute Council or president wants to take. Regrettably, there is not much one can do to turnaround this unprecedented move.

The only way to re-establish its perceived independence, MIA is to declare that the comments of the president were specifically his and not that of the Council. If this is the case then the president should think on the way forward.

If, on the other hand, the comments made in the media are endorsed by the Council of the Malta Institute of Accountants, then MIA has a lot of soulsearching to do including its modus operandi. In any case, it may be opportune, at this stage, to appoint a totally independent body to follow the adequacy of such procedures.

Many wish to believe that this was an oversight and that the MIA should rectify its position at the earliest.