The Chamber of Advocates today expressed its concern about an editorial in The Sunday Times of Malta which, it said, in the name of the freedom of the press, attempted to influence public opinion in supporting it to avoid payment of its dues.

This is not healthy in a democracy, the chamber said in a statement, and the thinly-veiled insinuations against the Magistrate concerned “verge on an abuse of the power that the paper enjoys and unfairly undermines public confidence in the judiciary”.

The statement was issued with reference to the editorial of the Sunday Times of Malta of last Sunday, which dealt with a garnishee order against the Times of Malta Head of News and Editor-in-Chief. It was signed by president George Hyzler and PRO Louis Degabriele.

The fact at issue is that four MUMN officials were awarded damages by the Court of Appeal in a libel suit that they had instituted against the Head of News of the Times of Malta and its Editor in-Chief. That makes the two individuals concerned debtors at law of the MUMN officials (the Creditors). The debtors subsequently instituted proceedings against Malta (represented by the Attorney General) before the constitutional court presumably claiming that the judgement in question violated their right to freedom of expression under the constitution.

In the meantime, the creditors who were not party to the constitutional case, have demanded payment of the sum awarded to them and followed this up with an executive warrant (a garnishee order) following non-payment. In any event the Constitutional Court does not have the power to annul or modify the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

The editorial in question expressed its disapproval at the judgments of the court of Magistrates and the Court of Appeal; expressed an understanding that once a constitutional case had been filed the judgement of the Court of Appeal could not be enforced; and expressed its surprise that the Magistrate who signed the executive warrant was the same Magistrate who had decided the case.

The chamber said “the editorial incorrectly implies that the Magistrate, who happened to be the duty Magistrate when the warrant was filed, should have, or could have done otherwise”. There are very specific circumstances at law that would allow a Judge/Magistrate to refuse to sign a demand for the issue of an executive warrant and the existence of a constitutional case (even had he been privy to its existence) is not one of them. The editor should have been advised that the Magistrate would have acted against the law had he not signed the application for the garnishee order. The claim of the Head of News and the Editor-in-Chief of the Times of Malta that payment of an amount declared due by the Court of Appeal is not payable pending the outcome of the constitutional case, citing as justification a decision in another case that judgments should not be executed pending constitutional proceedings, is at best doubtful and is certainly not established case-law. Treating this matter as a “vindictive act on us (journalists)” betrays a degree of paranoia and a misplaced belief that journalists are entitled to preferential treatment and should be held above the law.

The Chamber said it believes in the importance both of the role of a free press in a democracy and a free and independent judiciary as one of the pillars of the rule of law – but it must voice its concern when in the name of the freedom of the press a newspaper attempts to influence public opinion in supporting it to avoid payment of its dues. 

This is not healthy in a democracy, and the thinly-veiled insinuations against the Magistrate concerned, verge on an abuse of the power that the paper enjoys and unfairly undermines public confidence in the judiciary, the chamber said.

In a statement issued in reply, The Times said it objected to the statement by the Chamber that the newspaper is attempting to “influence public opinion on supporting it to avoid payment of its dues”. It is an outright lie to state we are trying to avoid payment, the publishing house said.

As for its allegations of “abuse of power”, perhaps the Chamber should have reflected on its own words a little more carefully before making such a statement, it said.