Justice minister cites legal advice stating Opposition anti-SLAPP bill in violation EU regulations

Despite objections by the Opposition, government MPs sitting on the parliamentary committee for the consideration of bills voted down the  amendments proposed by the Opposition

Government MPs voted against an anti-SLAPP bill presented by the Opposition
Government MPs voted against an anti-SLAPP bill presented by the Opposition

An anti-SLAPP amendment to the new Media and Defamation bill was voted down by MPs from the government’s side during Monday’s meeting of the committee of the consideration of bills.

Justice minister Owen Bonnici told the committee said that legal amendments proposed by the Opposition, which are intended to protect local media houses against SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuits, would violate EU regulations if they were to be introduced.

The minister said the government had sought legal advice on the matter from attorney general Peter Grech, as well as private international law expert Paul Cachia and human rights expert Ian Refalo. The minister said he had also sought the advice of British law firm Bird&Bird.

All four, he said, had said that the proposed legal changes went against member states’ obligation, according to the Lugano Convention, to recognize sentences handed down in other member states.

Bonnici argued that the amendments were unnecessary, given that Maltese law already provided for the protection of individuals against charges brought against them in foreign jurisdictions.

Nationalist Party (PN) MP, and the author of the bill, Jason Azzopardi however argued that the Lugano Convention cited by Bonnici provided for each member state to decide for itself what should be considered a matter of internal public policy.

He added that Pilatus Bank had not decided to file a $40 million lawsuit against the late Daphne Caruana Galizia if they couldn’t get the sentence enforced in Malta.

Therese Comodini Cachia, who is also a human rights lawyer, agreed that the Lugano Convention allowed member states to decide for themselves what issues were considered a matter of public policy.

Read more: Government expected to vote down SLAPP amendment to defamation law

She said that Caruana Galizia’s brutal assassination had introduced “a certain amount of self-censorship” in the media, and stressed the need to offer protection to local media houses.

The convention she said, made it clear that it should be the Maltese parliament to decide whether the protection of local journalists is important enough to be made a matter of public policy.

“If the government decides this is not the case, there is noting we can do, we can take a vote and the government can vote against it,” said Comodini Cachia, urging the government to reconsider its position against the amendments.

Azzopardi concluded by stressing that if both sides agreed that journalists should be protected, then lawmakers should not waste time of “red-herring issues” like jurisdiction, and should agree to find a legal text they could all agree with.

He insisted the public policy always superseded jurisdiction because it was “the manifestation of a country’s sovereignty”. He said that once the two sides agreed on the principle, that libel shopping the wording of the bill could be changed completely.