Author Mark Camilleri has filed a constitutional case against the State Advocate and the National Book Council, claiming that the latter discriminated against him because of his political views and had refused to review and promote his book, A Rent Seeker’s Paradise.
He claimed this was, “for political reasons, in view of the acute criticism of the Government and the Labour Party which the book contains.”
Camilleri, himself a former Chairman of the Council in the years 2013 to 2021, had broken ranks with Labour, becoming a vocal critic of the party, after Robert Abela’s election as leader in 2020.
In the court application filed before the First Hall of the Civil Court yesterday, Camilleri stated that his position on the council had not been renewed by the Education Minister after he started to criticise the Labour administration.
“In addition to this, the plaintiff published a book by the name of A Rent Seeker’s Paradise, in which he reveals corruption and bad governance on the part of the present government and the Labour Party,” the application reads.
The book was published in an electronic format in September 2021 and in print the following month.
“The plaintiff requested to make use, by right, of the service offered by the defendant National Book Council, by which the aforementioned book would be reviewed in the weekly review managed by the defendant in the newspaper ‘Illum’, but this had been refused by the aforementioned entity, for political reasons, namely the acute criticism of the Government and the Labour Party which is found in the book.”
The application, which was signed by lawyer David Bonello, goes on to point out that the National Book Council was set up through subsidiary legislation under the Education Act and is meant to be autonomous and free from external interference.
Under the subsidiary legislation in question, one of the Council’s stated purposes is to promote books and represent the interests of authors and publishers, the application points out, arguing that the Council’s refusal to promote Camilleri’s book is entirely contrary to the Council’s raison d’etre and was serving the interests of the Government and not the authors and publishers which it had been created to protect.
“The subsidiary legislation under which the Council was set up also obliges it to sustain and assist authors and publishers by, amongst other things, defending their interests at the political level,” reads the application. “By its actions it is doing the exact opposite with regards to the plaintiff.”
The lawyer argued that this refusal to assist or defend Camilleri constituted a breach of his fundamental rights.
Furthermore, Camilleri was being treated differently to other authors, he said, claiming that this discriminatory treatment was leading to him suffering loss of actual and future income.
Camilleri’s lawyer called upon the court to declare that he had suffered a breach of his fundamental rights, by having been subjected to discrimination on political grounds, both with regards the promotion of his book and his removal from the National Book Council chairmanship.