Why Labour’s media proposals leave a sour taste

The Labour Party’s manifesto Int Malta leaves a very sour taste in its section dealing with the media and journalism.

For starters, the reference to ‘recognising the media as the fourth pillar of democracy’ in the Constitution—promised in 2022 and never implemented—has now been downgraded to ‘recognising the media in the Constitution’.

This vague promise might as well result in a meagre mention in Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which is the non-enforceable part of Malta’s highest law.

We are not surprised by this decision. Prime Minister Robert Abela had always been against any reference to the wording ‘fourth pillar of democracy’, even though it was etched in his party’s 2022 manifesto.

But that conundrum has now been solved with reference to the fourth estate being dropped completely from the 2026 manifesto.

A constitutional reference to the media as the fourth pillar of democracy may seem a triviality to most. It is not. A country’s belief in the media as the fourth estate is a powerful signal in the face of anti-democratic forces that try and push back against the fundamental freedoms we all enjoy. This is not just about journalists. It is about freedom of expression; the right to know and receive information; the right to express an opinion.

By peddling back on its 2022 commitment, the PL is only signalling its distrust in the media’s fundamental role to act as a watchdog on public institutions, politicians and the nexus between power and business. It’s a pity that the PL chose to go down this road. And this is not a flippant observation but is further confirmed by other media-related proposals in the manifesto.

There is the hypocritical reference to widening the scope of anti-SLAPP legislation to make it applicable to domestic cases as well and increasing the dissuasive penalties for those who engage in abusive litigation.

In itself this promise is positive and in line with what the Institute of Maltese Journalists and foreign media freedom organisations have long called for.

But this pledge need not have even been listed had the Labour government agreed to amendments put forward by the Opposition in January 2025. Back then, PN MP Karol Aquilina had piloted amendments to strengthen the anti-SLAPP legislation government had introduced in 2024 when it implemented the European directive.

The Nationalist Party was, among others, proposing to make anti-SLAPP legislation applicable also to domestic cases not just to transnational cases, and to substantially increase the dissuasive penalties the court could impose on those who abusively try to stifle public participation.

Government MPs had voted down the amendments in a heated session, almost ridiculing them and conflating them with issues that had nothing to do with the subject of the debate.

And even if the government did not want to play ball back then because the amendments came from the Opposition, it had more than 15 months at its disposal to put forward its own amendments to strengthen anti-SLAPP legislation.

Unfortunately, it did nothing and now we find those very amendments that were shot down more than a year ago etched into the PL’s 2026 manifesto. This is not atonement but hypocrisy!

It is pretty obvious that reference to anti-SLAPP legislation was only added as a sugar cube to show how media-friendly the PL is. We seriously doubt there is the goodwill to implement the pledge.

But there is an even more sinister twist to the PL’s proposals regarding the media.

Point 14 in the same chapter is a commitment to increase libel damages, which has long been the wish of many PL exponents, including Jonathan Attard and Ramona Attard.

After the chest-thumping on how much the PL believes in freedom of expression, the pledge goes on to emphasise the need to offer better protection to victims of slander and libel. The proposal promises “expeditious libel proceedings” and “adequate remedies that make more sense in today’s times”.

No one can fault the need for quicker settlement of libel proceedings. But the second part of the pledge that refers to “adequate remedies” is nothing more than a euphemism for “we will increase libel damages substantially”. They could have said it outright but instead, they opted for tamer words to appear less confrontational; less despotic.

There is no compelling case to be made today for libel damages to increase. Very rarely have our courts awarded the highest damages sanctioned at law, whenever they found guilt. This in itself is indicative that the need to raise the highest penalties is non-existent.

This pledge unmasks how the Labour Party truly perceives the media and journalists—an inconvenience. It is ironic that the party, which prides itself in having removed censorship and criminal libel now wants to raise libel damages.

Never have the ‘good mornings’ and the ‘I appreciate your work as journalists’ mouthed by Robert Abela before his campaign press conferences sounded hollower. Indeed, they are nothing more than sugar sprinklings to mask the bitter pill in the PL’s manifesto.