|
This week, Police Commissioner John Rizzo took the unprecedented step of filing two separate libel suits, one against this newspaper and its midweek edition, after he was criticized by opinion writers for responding to a specific request by Labour deputy leader, Michael Falzon.
We say “unprecedented”, not because it is unheard of for a Police Commissioner to resort to legal action – after all, if John Rizzo genuinely feels he has been libelled, he has as much right to sue as any other aggrieved citizen – but because Rizzo has sued this newspaper specifically for the publication of opinions, even though the facts upon which those opinions were based have not been contested by Rizzo himself, or indeed by anyone else.
One need hardly add that this constitutes a very dangerous precedent, and citizens of this country may well be forgiven for thinking that the entire notion of joining the European Union has somehow been an illusion.
For the record, the undisputed facts which inspired the Police Commissioner’s two separate libel suits were the following. On Sunday 6 May, deputy Labour leader Dr Michael Falzon lost his cool while addressing a conference at the Labour party in Rabat. He was reacting to a front-page story in our sister paper Illum, which revealed that Falzon had grossly over-reacted to an anonymous email by reporting the matter to the Police Commissioner.
In a speech accessible on our website www.maltatoday.com.mt, Dr Falzon naively exposed the fact that there is a conspiracy against him within the Labour Party. In so doing, he also let slip that he had “authorised” (Dr Falzon’s choice of word, not ours) the Police Commissioner to investigate the author of said anonymous email. As a result, the person in question was called in for questioning, his computer was confiscated, and he was required to sign in daily at the police station as part of a process called “police bail” – generally reserved for serious criminals.
The above version of events has not to date been challenged in any detail by either Dr Michael Falzon or the Police Commissioner himself. And yet, when the managing editor of this newspaper, Saviour Balzan, chose to comment on these facts in an opinion column published in the Midweek edition – expressing, among other things, his personal view that the Police Commissioner had no business to take orders from the deputy Opposition leader – Rizzo reacted by initiating libel proceedings against both Mr Balzan and Matthew Vella, editor of MaltaToday Midweek.
Less than a week later, the same John Rizzo filed a second suit, this time against Managing Editor Saviour Balzan and Michael Falzon: the former Nationalist minister, chairman of the Water Services Corporation, Radio 101 commentator, and also – the ultimate crime – a correspondent with MaltaToday.
In his article last Sunday (Policing One’s Enemies), Michael Falzon outlined the above scenario, and then asked the following, pertinent question: “Has not MLP Deputy Leader Michael Falzon successfully used the Police Force to control the freedom of an innocent, law-abiding private citizen whom he suspected could be a political enemy?”
The question arises directly from Rizzo’s own behaviour, as described by the MLP deputy leader. And yet, according to the Police Commissioner, Falzon had no right to ask it in public.
It seems that, in his mad frenzy to rush to court, Police Commissioner Rizzo has forgotten a number of sacrosanct facts. One: the office of the Commissioner of Police is a public function, upon which the administration of justice, and indeed the stability of the entire country, depends. As such, the Commissioner’s actions in any free country must be open to scrutiny and fair comment.
Two: libel, by definition, implies the slander of an individual by associating that person with untruths. In no way does it also imply the expression of an opinion based on facts which are demonstrably true. For Rizzo’s information, this opinion is not unique to MaltaToday. It is actually enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention of Human Rights, as amply illustrated in a recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (Lombardo and others v. Malta).
And finally, three: for all of the above reasons, John Rizzo’s two separate libel cases must be viewed for what they really are: a clear and inalienable attempt to undermine freedom of expression in this country. |
