Transparency International is a respected institution with a global reputation for holding governments to account. Its mission to promote integrity and fight corruption is one that Gibraltar’s Government supports in principle and practice. Around the world, its reports have exposed wrongdoing, strengthened institutions, and improved public trust.

However, Transparency International is not infallible. It is made up of human beings, and like all institutions, it can make mistakes. In Gibraltar, we have seen this first-hand.

During the McGrail Inquiry, Transparency International aligned itself completely with the agenda of the ex-Commissioner of Police’s legal team, making a series of observations and predictions that were presented as authoritative. None of those speculations and predictions came to pass, and Gibraltar’s name was dragged through the mud seemingly for the purpose of creating a climate of public opinion favourable to McGrail.

TI warned, for example, of new legislation and government actions that could derail or compromise the process, delay hearings, and threaten the Inquiry’s independence. In reality, the Inquiry sat publicly for 19 days as scheduled, and advanced through to the Maxwellisation stage with the Chair even reconvening hearings in 2025 to address disclosure issues.

This is clear evidence that the independence and timetable of the inquiry were scrupulously maintained. Yet the commentary was seized upon by those seeking to cast Gibraltar in the worst possible light, often without context or balance.

This episode demonstrated that even respected watchdogs can be drawn, intentionally or otherwise, into the service of partisan narratives.

Now, we are seeing a repetition of that pattern.

It is no coincidence that Transparency International UK’s recent article, “Silencing the auditor: How Gibraltar’s government blocked scrutiny of its public finances”, echoes the talking points of one of the most politically charged matters in Gibraltar’s recent history: the McGrail Inquiry.

The timing and content bear all the hallmarks of yet another coordinated communications strategy, a “pincer movement” between Mr McGrail’s counsel, Adam Wagner, and Transparency International UK.

The irony is clear: an organisation dedicated to transparency is inserting itself into an ongoing exercise of transparency by Gibraltar’s own institutions, while omitting the full facts provided to them.

The Facts We Provided (See emails attached)

On 29 July 2025, Transparency International UK wrote to the Government with a list of questions. We responded in detail, point-by-point, in a spirit of openness. That full correspondence is now publicly available, and it is worth noting that the published article does not present our answers in full, nor does it give equal weight to the evidence we provided.

Below is a factual summary of our position based directly on that correspondence.

1. Ex-Gratia Payments

• The £13 million figure cited spans seven years and includes many routine settlements made on legal advice, often to avoid far more costly litigation.
• The former Principal Auditor received confidential information about many of these payments, but chose to present them as “opaque” without including the context of risk assessments, HR processes, or legal opinions.
• His characterisation of them as “unwarranted” is a value judgement, not an evidence-based conclusion.

2. Transfers of Police Officers

• The suggestion that transfers of former RGP officers were designed to shield individuals or obstruct the McGrail Inquiry is both baseless and inflammatory.
• These moves were carried out under standard procedures, with the knowledge and consent of the then Commissioner of Police (sometimes at his request) and with relevant notice periods waived.
• 6 Convent Place did not withhold information; indeed, we sought the Auditor’s own guidance on certain payment structures.

3. Gibraltar Savings Bank Audit

• The former Auditor attempted to conduct an anti-money-laundering compliance audit outside his statutory remit.
• The Gibraltar Savings Bank is regularly audited for AML compliance by PwC, an internationally recognised expert in this field.
• The refusal to hand over certain documents was grounded in legal advice and in line with longstanding convention on the confidentiality of government legal opinions and minutes.

4. Political Bias

• The former Auditor’s report includes commentary that mirrors the stated political positions of the Opposition almost word-for-word, particularly on the question of establishing a Public Accounts Committee.
• He failed to disclose close family links to the Opposition, creating a potential conflict of interest.
• The report’s tone is frequently sensationalist, and some criticisms were made at the last minute before retirement without giving departments a fair opportunity to respond.

5. Public Accounts Committee

• Successive governments have taken to the electorate their clear position that a PAC is unsuited to Gibraltar’s small democracy, and this has been endorsed in four consecutive elections. The Auditor’s advocacy for a PAC was outside his statutory remit and a clear overreach.

6. Legislative Modernisation

• Reform of the Public Finance (Control and Audit) Act is on our agenda and has already been drafted in outline.
• Progress has been delayed by external pressures such as Brexit, the pandemic, and the demands of EU Treaty negotiations, not abandoned.

7. Audit Office Staffing

• The suggestion that the Government has deliberately reduced audit capacity is false. Audit staff numbers are higher now than under the previous administration.
• Like all civil servants, Audit Office staff have opportunities for promotion and mobility, and some have moved on to other roles.

Nobody is Above Scrutiny

We welcome scrutiny when it is accurate, fair, and free from political manipulation. Gibraltar’s institutions are robust enough to withstand criticism, but the public deserves that criticism to be neutral and grounded in fact. We believe that the claims you are hearing suggesting this Government’s resistance to scrutiny amounts to some form of authoritarian power grab are not only grossly unfair but stray firmly into the realm of partisan motivated rhetoric - PARTICULARLY when you consider that these institutions are not only operating freely and comprehensively, but are mostly FUNDED by the very Government they seek to criticise, as is the case with McGrail’s defence team and the General Audit Office in Gibraltar.

While it is easy to point the finger at the Government of Gibraltar for challenging seemingly independent institutions that exist to scrutinise it, it is important to recognise that this is a fundamental tenet of democracy. Scrutiny must be accompanied by accountability on ALL sides, and no institution is above question.

History offers countless examples of respected bodies whose judgments have later been discredited or revealed to be influenced by partisan agendas. In the United States, the FBI’s handling of intelligence before the Iraq War and the flawed “weapons of mass destruction” assessments by the CIA upended the world on the basis of faulty premises. In the United Kingdom, the BBC’s 2003 reporting on the “sexed up” Iraq dossier sparked a national crisis before key claims were found to be exaggerated. Even the United Nations has faced criticism for failures such as the Oil for Food scandal or its handling of the Rwanda genocide warnings.

Democracy is not served by treating any authority as infallible. It is served when every party, whether government, media or watchdog, has the opportunity to put forward its honest position and be judged on the evidence. It is now for the wise electorate of Gibraltar, when presented with the evidence from all sides, to judge for themselves whether their institutions and public representatives are acting in the best interests of the community and upholding its principles.

Transparency International has done valuable work worldwide. But here, they have published a narrative that omits key facts, echoes partisan positions, and repeats unfounded allegations from a report whose own impartiality is open to question.

In the interests of genuine transparency, we again urge anyone reading their article to read our full answers side-by-side with their claims. Only then can the people of Gibraltar (and observers abroad) make an informed judgement.