Prime Minister denies ordering removal of PN billboards

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has denied giving specific instructions for the removal of Nationalist Party billboards, telling a judge that he had no involvement in the drafting of the Legal Notice limiting the time they would be allowed to be on display.

Arriving in court this afternoon - accompanied by a retinue consisting of lawyers, staffers, bodyguards and party journalists - Muscat took the witness stand in a constitutional case filed by the PN.

Muscat confirmed that planning fell under his direct remit, but stressed that he was not involved in the minutiae of the departments. “I was involved in this legal notice only in its signing.”

“It is a normal procedure, where after taking its course, the law is given to me or the President to sign into law...I use a system of trust. After all preliminary processes are completed, I sign it.”

He was testifying as a defendant in a constitutional case filed by the PN, who are objecting to a legal notice issued on 3 April 2016 which stipulated that political billboards were only allowed to erected three months before an election. Licence fees of €1,500 - the rate applicable to commercial billboards - would be applied to billboards erected outside that period. 



Judge Micallef maintained calm in the courtroom preventing it from descending into political slinging match.

The PN argued in court that the charges it would incur as a result would run up to about €30,000, effectively muzzling it and stifling its freedom of expression. 

Judge Joseph R. Micallef presiding the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, had dismissed the PN's request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction in June 2016, holding that he had not been shown that conditions warranting the injunction existed.



The PN had filed for the injunction, against the removal of its billboards, on 1 June moments after a judge had revoked a similar injunction it had filed.


Muscat said that insofar as he was aware, the Legal Notice in question had been drafted to combat abuses against time limits for displaying billboards whereby billboards were being erected and later moved a short distance, thereby “resetting the clock.”

“I see the way the Legal Notice was created was to create a level playing field and not to advantage or disadvantage anyone else,” clarifying that the “level playing field” was for all those who are interested in having a billboard in the street.

“I am saying it is a reality that there were many billboards on the roads and that there was insufficient regulation and something needed to be done about them. Everyone who has eyes could see it.”

Lawyers Jason Azzopardi and Karol Aquilina asked if the witness had been aware that the billboards bore a political message before the Legal Notice was promulgated and who owned them.

“I can't rely on my memory,” Muscat replied. “I think both parties as well as the government had messages on billboards. The ownership of the billboards is irrelevant...this Legal Notice is making a level playing field with everyone...all that it is doing is setting out a clear level playing field that parties can make their voices heard without obstacles, but that doesn't create an anomaly whereby things that should be the exception, such as electoral campaigns, become the norm.”

Aquilina repeatedly asked Muscat who actually owned the billboards, to objections from opposing counsel. 
“I don't know who owned the billboards. I don't believe there were billboards after the election, but I stand to be corrected. I don't have a photographic memory.”

“I think it is clear that there were billboards in the street. One of them had my face on it.”

Asked whether he had given any instructions about billboards, he replied “absolutely not.”


Asked about the timing of the publication of the Legal Notice in question, Muscat said it was “completely unrelated.”

“Legal Notices arrive on my desk in batches every day. It was completely unrelated.”

Aquilina's line of questioning stressed the temporary nature of the billboards, but Muscat did not play ball. “I gave you an answer. If you are not happy with it, that is another issue.”

Muscat was unable to say how many Legal Notices he enacted about billboards that year, repeating that he gets “a pile of legal notices to sign every day.”

“I am asking the Prime Minister if he knows whether, after he enacted the Legal Notice, he was aware of any changes being made to it.” Aquilina asked.
 “I am not aware of this because I do not have the information here. Should I shoot from the hip?” The court ordered him not to.

Muscat said he was aware that the retailers’ union GRTU had objected to the definition of signage and had been concerned that the notice could have been applied to shop windows, which was not the idea behind the law. There were also concerns by sporting organisations over banners at football grounds and bocci clubs, he said, adding that these difficulties had been treated by civil liberties minister Deborah Schembri.

Discussions with the GRTU on the matter were either concluded or close to conclusion, he said. “As Prime Minister, I work by entrusting people with tasks ...not micro-management. The job of a Prime Minister is to see the wider picture...not to see the details of every Legal Notice.”

The case continues in April.


Lawyers Karol Aquilina and Jason Azzopardi are appearing for the PN.

Lawyers Robert Abela, assisted Oliver Magri for Planning Authority.

Attorney General Peter Grech is appearing on behalf of the government.

Lawyer Audrey Buttigieg Vella appeared for the Ministry of Transport.