I refer to Stephen Calleja’s article titled “Football bribery allegations – Issue should have been decided before draws”, (TMIS, 26 July) and to the comments he made at the end of my reply to an article of his, which had appeared in the previous edition of the newspaper, and would like to make the following comments:

According to Maltese law anybody who feels he has been libelled by an article, letter or comment published or broadcast in the media, or in a written communication in other circumstances as defined by law, is entitled to sue for libel before the criminal and/or the civil courts. It is true that the law allows the right of reply, as is the case with this reply and my previous one. However, this is an option open to, and not an obligation of, the person who feels aggrieved. In the light of this I kindly ask your reporter to enlighten me and your readers firstly why is it that in a democratic society if one makes use of a legal right one “intimidates” the wrongdoer, and secondly, what kind of wrong does an injured person commit when he acts in accordance with the law against the wrongdoer? I am also asking for a clarification to the latter query since it seems that this is what your reporter is implying when he stated, “Incidentally, the tactic of taking journalists to court has been used other times by Dr Mifsud...”. Does your reporter perhaps assume that the media can abuse a reputable person with impunity?

The MFA president is baffled by your reporter’s contention that there are pending civil proceedings for libel initiated by him against The Malta Independent about an article written by a contributor of the same newspaper in 2005. Can your reporter be so kind as to enlighten me, the MFA president and your readers about these pending civil proceedings?

The fact that your reporter does not have an MFA Press Card is certainly not the fault of the MFA. In the case of media organisations, it is the standard practice for the person in charge of the sports section to ask, through the appropriate application form, for the MFA to issue an accreditation to an individual who regularly reports on domestic football for the media. The MFA obliges, as is also the case with The Malta Independent on Sunday.

In view of my reply, which appeared on page 19 as mentioned earlier, and in view of the detailed explanation given by the MFA president at the last MFA’s annual general meeting held on 25 July, both regarding the subject referred to above as well as the regularity and legitimacy of the forthcoming BOV National League 2009/2010 – which was unanimously endorsed by all the members at the AGM, which included those member clubs that allegedly complained to your reporter, and which was widely reported in the media on 25 and 26 July – I feel that any other comment I make would be superfluous. Indeed, you can take your horses to the river but you cannot make them drink. Imagine if one takes horses that do not belong to him to the river!

This time round I leave it up to your readers to judge the professional methods used by your reporter when writing about both subjects in the previous editions of your newspaper.

Mark Muscat

Head of Communications,

Malta Football Association

Stephen Calleja writes: Like everybody else, Dr Joe Mifsud has every right to seek redress in court if he feels that he has been libelled. But if journalists are told that they understand nothing about football, that they did not do research and that they should check facts, this is an attack on their professionalism, which to me amounts to intimidation. Just as much as using MFA activities such as press conferences and the annual general meeting to attack journalists for going beyond simple reporting amounts to intimidation too.

In this case, I am no “wrongdoer”. I am just doing my job.

I was surprised that Dr Mifsud was “baffled” that he has pending civil proceedings in court against me. Is it possible that he does not remember that in the last four years we have met in the Law Courts, before Magistrate Michael Mallia, for a libel case he instituted against me as editor of The Malta Independent? We have faced each other at least 12-13 times since the case started being heard.

The civil proceedings are about an article that Robert Arrigo wrote on the MFA in May 2005. Libel proceedings were started by Dr Mifsud against Mr Arrigo as the writer and myself as the editor. Does it ring a bell now?