MaltaToday journalist Raphael Vassallo has lost a libel suit he had filed against blogger and civil society activist Manuel Delia.
Vassallo had taken umbrage at a blog post in which Delia had criticised an opinion piece he (Vassallo) he had written on the arrests made in connection with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Delia’s post referred to the Italian Criminal Code and specifically to article 416bis which spoke of ‘omertà’ as a form of tacit complicity used to help masterminds of mafia crimes to get away with their crimes.
“This is where Raphael Vassallo comes in. Unwittingly, or perhaps because he is part of the mafia conspiracy that killed Daphne Caruana Galizia, he perpetrates the myth that arresting and punishing the triggermen resolves the crime. That is how he (and others) cover up for the mafia, thereby being part of it,” Manuel Delia wrote in his blog.
Vassallo said the statement alleged that he was an accomplice to murder. “He’s implying that I know who murdered Caruana Galizia and tried to help them get away with their crimes. This is a very serious allegation. I categorically deny it. The argument is completely false,” he had told the court.
But in a judgment handed down on Monday, Magistrate Rachel Montebello disagreed with Vassallo’s assertion that Delia had accused him of being part of the mafia or that he was involved in the journalist’s murder.
Delia’s comment about Vassallo must be seen in the context of the entire article. What Delia meant was that, by downplaying the potential involvement of other people (apart from the three men accused of the murder), one would be helping the mafia to continue living in the shadows.
Noting that the case revolves around two opinion articles, the Magistrate said Delia has every right to state his belief that Caruana Galizia was killed by a criminal organisation which remains hidden and which is aided by people who push the idea that only the triggermen were involved in the murder. On the other hand, Vassallo has every right to disagree with Delia’s statement.
Expressing one’s opinion on a matter of public interest such as Daphne’s murder is vitally important for the rule of law and is one of the most fundamental principles of free expression, the magistrate opined.
The court said that, while it understood that Vassallo may have taken offence at Delia’s writing, defamation requires the existence of serious reputational harm which, in this case, did not subsist.
The case was dismissed, with Vassallo ordered to pay all legal costs.