Following the libel “damages” imposed on us by the lower courts in a case filed by university academic Simon Mercieca, where court fees raised the total costs by around €5,000, we issued a statement saying that we will comply with the court order. However, we also made it clear that we disagree with the ruling. After giving it more thought, I have reached my conclusions, which I am now more confident in after careful reflection.
The lower Courts are consistently following the government’s policy against free speech and the free press by consistently ruling against free speech. The lower Courts are consistently forbidding the judgement and the opinions of informed journalists, consistently dismissing them as inappropriate, irregular and also illegal. The lower Courts are also consistently attacking the right of the free press to report on ongoing cases and express its free judgement. This consistent rule against the free press is not born from the need or requirement to defend human rights, but instead is part of the current government-policy trend in repressing free speech.
The Judiciary, although technically independent, has occasionally shown that it is not completely free from government influence and it does, on occasion react and take action in line with the present sentiment of the country. In terms of legal philosophy this may also be actually legitimate in the sense that the Court is interpreting the law according to the relevant and cultural thinking of society. On the other hand, this legal philosophical thinking can also directly threaten absolute human rights, such as the right to free speech.
The Labour government has created an increasingly hostile environment to the free press with its constant attacks against the press and its critics as it legislates in favour of protecting corrupt politicians. If the Court also follow this spirit, then the Courts will become morally corrupt just as the law is currently being corrupted by the government in favour of organised criminals. Government Ministers even celebrate Court orders on censoring journalists and invoke these Court rulings in Parliament!
The sentence by the Court in the libel case against me expressly states that I am forbidden from publicly expressing the judgement that Yorgen Fenech is part of an organsied criminal network and his associates and helpers are by effect, his criminal associates. The Court sentence is saying that for such claims to be made, there needs to be a Court conviction.
This is actually problematic. In an environment where the Attorney-General and the Police Commissioner are morally bankrupt, and criminals can get away with it, the free press is isolated for telling the truth, while also compelled to pay an additional payment to the criminal networks for calling them out. Organised criminal networks can’t get a better deal in Malta, except by, maybe, raising libel “damages”.
The only people who damaged these criminals are the criminals themselves, through their own actions. Journalists shouldn’t be responsible for the gross and obscene actions of individuals who in any way facilitate and advocate for dangerous criminals or harm society with their actions. There’s a difference between obeying the law, being a good citizen and compromising with the truth. The Court of Laws have the absolute discretion to judge and control our actions by sending us to prison and force us to pay “damages”. The Court, however, should not be in a position to disallow me from sharing my good judgement on criminal networks even after I present extensive evidence.
Yorgen Fenech has historically bribed and paid journalists to advocate for his interests. This is a fact. Yorgen Fenech also engaged in extensive money laundering practices in association with Joseph Muscat’s inner circle to syphon and embezzle public funds. This is also a fact and there is extensive evidence of this. Yorgen Fenech is also being accused of commissioning the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia and he is being accused of doing so by the same middleman who brokered her murder. These are all facts. Another fact is that the public inquiry on the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia ruled that the State facilitated and created the conditions of her murder. We also know for a fact that several Police officers constantly disrupted investigations into Keith Schembri and Yorgen Fenech including Deputy Commissioner Silvio Valletta and ex-head of the FIAU Ian Abdilla. I can go on.
The point is that if, despite the public evidence, the biggest political crisis in Malta’s history, marked by the 2019 resignation of the country’s most popular Prime Minister, is still not enough for us to say that Joseph Muscat, Yorgen Fenech, and Keith Schembri are criminals, then we are living under political repression, and the courts are facilitating Joseph Muscat’s rehabilitation.
I may have been alienated from this ongoing collapse of free speech as I have been immersed in creating this press outlet. Only now, I am realising about it as I have been hit by it really hard. Now that I can feel it and experience it in full, I can fully understand it. The Courts are being used as tools by criminal networks at the expense of the free press and the right to free speech.
Website Editor
Historian and Publisher
Leave a Reply