An administrative tribunal has declared that the appealed decision by the Public Broadcasting Authority’s editorial board to stop Nationalist Party MP from presenting a television show due to the announcement of her candidature as “abusive”.
Back in September 2012, Buttigieg was presenting a television show called Sellili. Before the start of the winter schedule, she informed PBS that she had not taken a decision on whether she would be contesting the 2013 general election.
On 15 September however, she announced that she would be contesting the elections despite the date for the 2013 election remaining unknown. The following day, she received an e-mail from the company she had formed an agreement with, informing her of PBS’s decision to stop her from presenting the show due to her announcement. PBS had contended that those presenting programmes and contesting the elections are given unfair advantage through increased air-time.
Buttigieg appealed this decision and filed a judicial protest, claiming that the show does not contain political commentary, but is more aimed towards housewives, that she has been working in broadcasting for many years, meaning such a decision seriously affects her livelihood and that a previous court case supports her claim that PBS’s decision was tantamount to abuse.
Buttigieg also said that through her company, she managed to get many sponsors for the programme, and that her company would even get commissions on the sale of adverts during the programme.
The protest was filed against PBS, members of PBS’s editorial board and the company she had made the agreement with to host the show – Deemedia.tv Limited. The company owned by her and her husband is called Cliché Media Entertainment Co Ltd.
PBS objected to the claims made by Buttigieg by saying the editorial board had taken a reasonable decision when considering the circumstances of the time.
Buttigieg was ultimately vindicated by the tribunal’s decision, with the most relevant testimony coming from the former chairman of the PBS board of directors, Joe Mizzi, where he said the decision taken the day after Buttigieg announced her candidacy as being in line with their policy at the time. He said however that shortly after this took place, and before the 2013 general election, PBS no longer observed this policy.
This was one of the primary reasons for the tribunal to accept Buttigieg’s request and declare the move to be abusive. She also asked the tribunal to be awarded damages for the loss to her livelihood, however this was not accepted as the Tribunal’s competence does now provide for such a move.
The administrative tribunal was presided over by magistrate Charmain Galea, David Fabri and Antoine Naudi.
PBS to appeal
In a statement, PBS said the sentence was related to a decision that had been taken by the previous board, led by Joseph Mizzi.
It noted that the decision taken by that board had been declared null, while Buttigieg was not awarded any compensation.
PBS said that, while it respected the considerations of the tribunal, it considered the decision to go directly against the station’s constitutional requirement of impartiality and balance, and will as such be appealing that decision before an Appeals Court.