Busuttil loses libel case over l-Orizzont ‘trading in influence’ editorial

A court has dismissed a libel suit filed by Opposition leader Simon Busuttil against a GWU newspaper, over an editorial which had suggested he had been trading in influence.

Busuttil filed for libel after the l-Orizzont leader entitled “Trading in Influence” alleged that his consultancy firm had been fed contracts by direct order under the Nationalist administration.

Describing the situation under the Nationalists as “unrestrained gluttony, through the use of direct orders”, the editorial reported rumours of it being impossible for local companies to benefit from EU funds unless they went through certain companies – implying that Busuttil’s Europa Services and Consultancy had been trading in influence.

Busuttil felt the insinuation that he had been involved in such criminal activity was defamatory. He accused the editor of attacking his integrity simply because he disagreed with his political beliefs and of trying to damage Busuttil’s political career by muddying his name.

L-Orrizont editor Alessandro Mangion’s defence had principally been that of fair comment, pointing out that the Opposition leader was a public figure and, therefore, subject to an elevated level of scrutiny. As a journalist, Mangion had argued that he was duty bound to inform his readership of the facts.

In order to ensure a balance is struck between the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection of one's reputation, the European Court of Human Rights had laid down a series of criteria for non-defamatory writings which include that the writing must contribute to a debate of general interest, the person concerned must be acting in a public context and that the conduct of the person concerned prior to the publication had to be taken into account.

The ECHR had also laid down that the defence of “fair comment” required that any value judgements must also have a factual basis.

Magistrate Francesco Depasquale noted that the article, as written, did not implicate Busuttil in any criminal activity but had made reference to unnamed companies which may have been trading in influence. The defendant had specifically asked the plaintiff about the issue in order to reassure the public that neither Busuttil nor his company had ever been involved in the abusive practise. However “instead of replying to the allegations made and making a public clarification, as he had been requested to, [Busuttil] filed these proceedings.”

In the court’s view, the content of the article “could not fail to be seen as fair comment” and held that the article had been based on facts already in the public domain and which appeared to be substantially correct, the comment being further justified by the fact that the plaintiff is a public person.