Your editorial entitled ‘The Daphne Murder – Jason’s Bombshell’ published on 2nd May is almost a collectors’ item, so perfect example was it of poor and shoddy journalism.  In just a few paragraphs, without a shred of supporting evidence, it manages to smear the Prime Minister, the Government, the police and, indeed, the entire nation of Malta.

To support its wild flailing, it even appears to lay claim to special inside knowledge of the confidential details of the police investigation, breathlessly informing the reader:  “Up to quite recently we were still uncertain if the killing had been ordered in Malta for purely Maltese reasons. Other countries and different scenarios were mentioned. But slowly the killing is taking on a more Maltese colour”.  The writer knows nothing of the state of the investigation.  Puffed-up speculation to support a rickety thesis is simply irresponsible journalism.

The springboard for your article was the extraordinary, unsubstantiated statement, made under the protection of Parliamentary immunity, by PN Member of Parliament Jason Azzopardi. His “bombshell”, as your editorial described it, was a series of unsupported, utterly spurious claims put together to sound like some sort of political thriller.  In fact, his allegations were denied by the Malta Police, the Malta Security Service and the Lead Investigator in the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder Keith Arnaud, none of which apparently carries much weight in the eyes of the Independent.  He will not repeat these grotesque allegations without the comfort blanket of that immunity.

Having detected “Maltese colour” in the killings, your article launches into its most tawdry and contemptible phase. In the Maltese context, it knowingly explains, Maltese colour “means the involvement of a political centre of power.” This extraordinary pronouncement is made without explanation or justification, and is both false and offensive to this nation.

Then, in a slippery, ‘willing to wound and yet afraid to strike’ kind of fashion, it raises the most foully offensive, utterly false possibility. “We are not saying the killing was ordered by the prime minister”.  If you are not saying it, then why even raise the possibility? There can only be one purpose – to smear with innuendo, when the facts don’t support your case.   And then you try guilt by association: “but maybe, (it) could be, someone near him who could end up holding him to ransom as well.”  This, without a shred of evidence; just another attempted smear. Shoddy, defamatory, irresponsible journalism. The murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia was a horrific and unacceptable act. But the pursuit of justice is not served by distortion, smear and political point-scoring.

From the outset, the Prime Minister and his government have been unstinting in their commitment to bring her killers to justice.  The Government has offered a one million euro reward for information leading to the arrest of her killers. The police have been given the fullest possible encouragement to pursue their investigations without fear or favour. International assistance from Europol and the FBI has been accepted with gratitude. Three men have been charged with her murder, and the investigation continues unabated.  The Prime Minister has made clear his personal horror and disgust at this criminal action. Whatever disagreements we may have had with Ms Caruana Galizia during her lifetime, nothing can diminish this government’s utter revulsion and anger over this criminal act. It has no place in the Malta of today.

Kurt Farrugia Head Government Communication Prime Minister Secretariat