Let’s hope there will be no turning back of the clock on criminal libel

Criminal libel was abolished in 2018 by the Labour government as part of a series of reforms that saw the Press Act make way for the new Media and Defamation Act.

The removal of criminal libel was a victory for journalism and freedom of expression. Indeed, Malta became one of only a handful of EU member states that no longer criminalised defamation; a trailblazer of sorts.

The change came in the aftermath of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. But the shock of that horrible murder appears to be waning seven long years down the line.

Criminal libel was often used by individuals and politicians to try and silence journalists and prevent them from exercising their right to freedom of expression. It served to create a chilling effect that sought to stymie debate. As far back as 2012, politicians such as Jose Herrera and Franco Debono had called for the removal of criminal libel, arguing that such proceedings should be of a civil nature.

But now, six years after the Labour government took the bold step to remove criminal libel from the statute books, singular voices within the Labour Party are toying with the idea of turning the clock back.

Over the weekend, former Labour Party president Ramona Attard called for the return of criminal libel and higher penalties for libel cases. She was mimicking several calls made over the past month by former Labour activist Neville Gafà, a close ally of Keith Schembri, on his blog.

It is unclear whether Attard’s outburst and Gafà’s writings are part of a grassroots campaign pushed by the Labour Party to prepare the groundwork for a U-turn on criminal libel.

The Labour government promised a White Paper last year with proposed reforms to strengthen freedom of expression and offer more protection to journalists. The White Paper should have had as its basis proposals for reform made by the Committee of Media Experts set up by the government in the wake of the Caruana Galizia public inquiry recommendations.

However, the government has so far not lived up to its commitment and instead we are hearing voices from within it clamouring for a return to a past when criminal libel was used in a vexatious manner to try and silence journalists.

Attard based her argument on personal experience when a blogger earlier this year, falsely accused her father of being a beneficiary of the disability benefits scandal involving former MP Silvio Grixti. The story was a complete lie from beginning to end, so much so that the blogger went on to remove the story when this was pointed out to him.

In that circumstance, Attard and her father could have easily instituted libel proceedings under the existing civil regime. There is no need for criminal libel to be part of the law for the former PL president to take meaningful action against the blogger.

Freedom of expression does not mean journalists, or anyone else for that matter, can lie. Indeed, freedom of expression is not absolute – the right to say what you want stops the moment you lie or intentionally misrepresent or slander someone. The Media and Defamation Act provides the legal instruments to whoever wants to seek redress in these circumstances.

It is convenient for politicians to depict the media and journalists as the bogeyman. More often than not no attempt is made to distinguish between acts of serious journalism and cheap commentary thus conveniently tarring the whole sector with one brush.

The truth is that had it not been for investigative journalists the extent of the sleaze involved in the Vitals hospitals deal would not have been revealed; the Panama companies belonging to Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri would have never been discovered; the shenanigans involving 17 Black, Yorgen Fenech, Electrogas, the Montenegro windfarms, Enemalta and so much more would have remained hidden.

Before politicians like Attard start throwing around retrograde ideas they should sit down and reflect on the importance the media has in a democratic society. And Attard has a very good starting point – the Labour Party’s 2022 electoral manifesto.

The manifesto had described the media as “the fourth pillar of democracy” and went on to pledge constitutional and legal changes that ensure “greater protection for journalists”.

This leader hopes the PL still believes in its own pledge and will push the government to fulfil it in the coming months.