Nothing defamatory in asking questions and suggesting police were the source – Balzan

It was normal for police sources to inform political parties and media of inside information. This was the central theme stressed by MaltaToday managing editor Saviour Balzan as he testified as a defendant in a libel case filed by PN Secretary-General Paul Borg Olivier.

Borg Olivier is claiming that a 2010 opinion penned by Balzan, about the dismissal of former PN Sliema mayor Nikki Dimech from the party, was defamatory in his regard because it had been insinuated that Borg Olivier had been informed by police sources that during his interrogation, Dimech had admitted to accepting bribes.

The opinion in question, titled ‘You simply don’t have it,’ had raised a number of questions of how Borg Olivier had got to know of Dimech’s second interrogation,

MaltaToday had also reported that canvassers for PN candidate Robert Arrigo were spreading a rumour that Borg Olivier was the favourite to receive Arrigo’s second preference votes. In the meantime, Dimech – formerly a protégé of Arrigo – had been expelled, against the party statute, from the PN by Borg Olivier for admitting to police that he had demanded a commission on a council contract.

Balzan testified that in his opinion piece, he had written that Dimech had been dismissed from the PN after signing a statement under duress. “How could Borg Olivier have known that Dimech had signed the statement?” asked Balzan. 

He insisted that collusion between police and politicians is a normal affair. “The problem with the police is that, instead of acting in an executive manner, they take instructions from the political class.”

Balzan testified that various Police Commissioners had confirmed that they cannot act without first receiving a report, contrasting this with an incident where the deputy Labour leader Michael Falzon had stated in a Labour party club that he had given the green light for the Commission to investigate allegations made in the newspaper Illum.

The media is often criticised for using leaks from police sources, said the defendant, but pointed out that this practice is indispensable in investigative journalism.

“I never felt, whilst writing it, that I might have been defaming Borg Olivier. The timing aroused my suspicion as a journalist. The police are never going to admit that they pass on information, but it is an established practice in journalism and politics.”

Balzan explained that Dimech’s background had been shown to be what it is. “He was a protégé of Robert Arrigo until he started to threaten the status quo and became a persona non grata. There was information that Borg Olivier was also interested in campaigning on the Sliema district.”

MaltaToday had asked Borg Olivier directly on whether he intended to contest on the 10th district, but he had replied evasively, said Balzan. The PN spokesman Frank Psaila rebuffed the questions as “frivolous.”

“In the newspapers, we often discuss who may campaign on certain districts, I do not think this is defamatory. The rest is historical, and we remained loyal to the facts. Whilst I understand that Borg Olivier might not be pleased with the article, these are the norm in journalism.”

Cross-examining, lawyer Joseph Zammit Maempel suggested that perhaps Dimech may have been untruthful. Balzan replied that he was careful not to make any declarations, only ask questions. He repeated that sourcing information from police leaks is an accepted practice.

Defence lawyer Toni Abela called Borg Olivier to the witness stand. Borg Olivier explained that he had taken exception to the word “sinister” being used. “Balzan was trying to attribute his own intentions to other people,” said the plaintiff.

“After his alleged [bribery] case came to light, I used the party structures to have Dimech dismissed from the party.

Asked if he had acted according to the party statute, Borg Olivier was evasive however and refused to answer directly.

“I acted according to my powers as party secretary, against a person who had admitted to bribery.”