Courts not the place for politicians to fight political battles, magistrate says

Those who choose to enter the political arena must be prepared to fend off allegations in their regard through political debate and not through the courts.

That cutting remark was made in a judgement dismissing a libel suit filed by Cyrus Engerer against the Nationalist Party, over comments published by the party during the last general election.

Engerer had taken exception to being described as a backstabber in a 2012 opinion piece on the PN's website.

The plaintiff had been elected deputy mayor of Sliema on a PN ticket, before switching to the PL, being given a Dar Malta appointment by the current administration.

“This is why the ‘positive’ campaign cannot be anything but a charade,” reads the article. “It comes after a legislature of negative campaigning. A year ago Cyrus Engerer was hailed a hero for recording his colleagues during a Local Council meeting. We all heard the tapes, the PN Counsellor was hounded and resigned. Backstabbing your own colleagues pays off – today he is the face of new Labour and honorary editor of the great Leader’s book.”

A recording of a conversation between former Sliema mayor Joanna Gonzi, Engerer and a third unnamed person, in which Engerer had said advocated “killing off” two local councillors had gone viral.

The conversation dealt with allegations that were being made against PN councilor Bobby Cali and PL councilor Martin Debono, who had been charged and eventually acquitted of misappropriating council laptops.

In the recording Engerer is heard telling the mayor that “it would be easier to hit them with a big hammer.”

The defendant argued that the article constituted fair comment and an expression of opinion based on substantially correct facts about a public person, rather than libel.

In his judgment, Magistrate Francesco Depasquale observed that Engerer had not only served for a time as PN deputy mayor of Sliema before resigning form the party and signing up for the PL campaign, but had also written a biography of Joseph Muscat.

Engerer was a public person, involved in politics at the time of writing of the opinion and was therefore subject to closer scrutiny than the common citizen.

While it had not been confirmed that Engerer had recorded the conversation, the former mayor had testified that that he had admitted to making a recording of the informal meeting and had threatened to use it against her.

Only Engerer and another person had been present at the meeting, which had been held at Gonzi's home, noted the court. It was therefore possible that Engerer had recorded the conversation.

It was not in doubt that the defendant had suggested hitting his fellow councillors, including his fellow party members “with a big hammer” and therefore the backstabbing comment was also justified. Comments to the effect that Engerer switched sides and authored Joseph Muscat’s biography were also justified since the facts stated had been correct.

The court held Engerer's decision to take the issue to court had been a bid to intimidate those making the allegations and protect himself. As a politician, the plaintiff should have confronted his attackers in a direct discussion, where he could fight for his beliefs, in the political arena, said the magistrate.

The court also ordered Engerer to bear the expenses of the case.