The GSD has issued a statement highlighting concerns over "political favouritism" following the former Principal Auditor’s report.

A statement from the GSD follows below:

There should be no political favouritism in dealing with financial claims or the award of public contracts. Unjustified payments should not be made to people just because of who they are, who they know and whether they are connected  to the governing parties. 

A number of questionable payments to persons close to the governing parties have surfaced in this Principal Auditor’s  Report. It is striking that in some cases his requests for information have been ignored which heightens concerns. There should be tougher controls on such payments to make sure they are justified and dealt with independently. 

For example, among the number of payments or transactions where serious questions have been raised: 

• A payment of £260,000 plus legal costs of £19,773 was made in 2022 to a GSLP executive member to settle a  claim which the Auditor records was one which public officers thought there was a defence to and against a  backdrop of his concern that claims submitted for unrelated overtime had “numerous anomalies” (para  4.3.13). It is clear that the claim which led to payment of £260,000 was considered and dealt with by the Chief  Minister. For reasons that the Auditor details (para 4.3.19) he considers that several aspects of that claim  “should not have been entertained.” The Auditor observes (para 4.3.25) that “the fact that the public officers  named in the claim put forward by the GDC officer were committed to making representations that refuted  the GDC officer’s allegations against the way the GDC officer claimed she had been treated, suggested there  was at least a chance the claim would be rejected and thus public funds spared.” He also raised issues as to  her promotion while on gardening leave and her transfer on better pay after an apparent “direct appointment” (para 4.3.11); 

• The Director of Media (and a former GSLP election candidate) was granted a payment in excess of £664,000  in April 2025. The Auditor noted that the contract does not “stipulate the payment of a gratuity on  termination” (para 5.5.27) and that his requests for information on the reasons for the payment have not been  replied to; 

• An ex gratia payment of £60,000 was made to a former Government Minister in 2022-23 (para 5.5.20) with  the Auditor observing that “despite requesting No.6 Convent Place to provide me with information…I had not  been informed of the reasons of this ex gratia payment”; 

• An offer of appointment to the GDC of an individual “closely related to a Government Minister” in  circumstances where the Auditor raises concerns as to whether the post was advertised and why certain  financial terms had been offered (para 4.3.37). His queries have not been responded to; 

• Decisions not to re-tender for services with Wildlife (Gibraltar) Limited raising issues which he describes as a  “perception of favouritism or corruption” (para 3.7.15) because of family connections with the Environment  Minister which can “lead to loss of trust in the procurement process.”

Additionally, the Principal Auditor has raised tendering concerns on a 20-year Upper Rock contract awarded which the  GSD have already previously noted was awarded to an entity in whom a GSLP election agent has interests. 

These payments are contained within the broader section reviewing the £11M of ex gratia payments made during  2018-2024. The Auditor raises concerns that some of those £11M payments appear “excessive and in many cases  unwarranted” and “brings into question fairness and consistency of terms between public servants.” 

Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi said:  

“The Principal Auditor’s queries should be answered clearly and publicly. Otherwise what we have is the spectre of  favouritism or political patronage. It would be totally wrong for unjustifiable claims to have been accepted or for better  financial deals to have been extracted just because a person is politically connected.  

Beyond answers on these specific cases it is obvious that reform is needed in this area. These are examples of wider  public concern on the allocation of valuable contracts or jobs or opportunities. There is a perception that some people  have the inside track because of who they are and who they know rather than on the merits of their individual  circumstances.  

There should be tougher controls on conflicts of interest and on whether contracts can be awarded to certain  individuals close to governing political parties. That is necessary to ensure a tighter regime on the eligibility to tender  and award of high-value contracts. This should be open, conflicts declared and tender procedures followed. This is  long-standing GSD policy and formed part of our manifesto. 

There is a similar need to adopt more robust protocols for the grant of ex gratia payments or settlements to persons  closely connected to the governing party. Again, that would be a basic good governance measure that would improve  existing controls. When making payments or entering into settlements or granting contracts to certain individuals or  entities in which politically connected individuals have interests the circumstances should be public and objectively  justifiable.”