Former Enemalta official Ray Ferris has taken exception to the story carried last week in this newspaper about his appointment as head of enforcement at the Malta Tourism Authority.

He has submitted a right of reply via his lawyers Veronique Dalli and Andrew Saliba.

“We refer to the article by Ms Rebekah Cilia published in your newspaper and on your online portal entitled “Ex-Enemalta official who took gifts from oil trader is MTA head of enforcement”.

“As set out below, the article you published contains factual errors and inaccuracies in our client’s regard, and misrepresents his actions and intentions, thus having the effect of damaging his reputation and dignity. He is therefore invoking his right under Article 15 of the Media and Defamation Act (Chapter 579 of the Laws of Malta) to have a statement in contradiction and explanation of the facts and allegations published in your newspaper with equal prominence as Ms Rebekah Cilia’s article.

“The article states that “his behaviour was deemed “unethical” by the Court”. This allegation, repeated three times in the article, is factually incorrect. What the Court actually declared, just once in its 114-page judgment, was that his behaviour certainly did not constitute a criminal offence and that, at best, it may possibly be deemed unethical (“Jista` jkun li tali haga mhix etikament korretta pero` zgur li ma taqax fil-parametri ta’ dan ir-reat”). This declaration was made in passing by the Court within the context of its legal deliberations on the offence of corruption. Unfortunately, the newspaper gives the reader the impression that the Court categorically and unequivocally condemned Mr Ferris’s actions as unethical. This is clearly not the case.

“The article further states that Mr Ferris “accepted gifts from an oil trader who was bidding in the Enemalta oil procurement tender process”. In this case the newspaper failed to give the proper context within which the gifts were made. This is a deliberate omission which misrepresents our client’s actions. The newspaper had a duty to also say that Mr Ferris never solicited gifts from anyone and that the gifts were made during Christmas festivities. Furthermore, the Court declared that Mr Ferris gained nothing from the transaction beyond the value of the gift itself, and that, in spite of the gift, he continued to perform his duties without fear or favour.”