The government on Wednesday evening rejected proposed amendments to Malta’s anti-SLAPP laws filed in a motion by the Nationalist Party.

Instead, it substituted the text of the motion with text which propagandistically recognised that Malta was the first to introduce the EU’s anti-SLAPP directive and encouraging the government to hold further consultations on laws which are currently on Parliament’s agenda.

The PN’s proposals were for the country’s anti-SLAPP laws to apply both to cases involving other countries and to cases filed solely in Malta, to adjust the maximum financial penalties on those instigating SLAPPs from a maximum of €10,000 to a minimum of €10,000 and a maximum of €100,000, to publish data on SLAPP cases online, and for court rulings from such cases to be immune to the ‘right to be forgotten’ principle.

These were all removed from the motion which was ultimately approved by 40 members to 33.

The Institute of Maltese Journalists (IĠM) which supported the proposed amendments and which, earlier in the day, encouraged MPs to vote in their favour said that it was “disgusted” by the government’s position.

It said that the debate had proven that the government was not interested in strengthening journalism but rather in increasing damages in civil cases, and noted that the government had also failed to indicate when the White Paper on media reform will be published.

Opening the debate in Parliament, PN MP Karol Aquilina – who co-tabled the motion – said that the scope of it was to improve a legal notice that implemented the EU’s anti-SLAPP directives. He pointed out that the motion would not only protect journalists, but all those interested in participating in public discussions.

At that point, he attempted to invite the President of the IGM into the parliamentary forum from the viewing gallery, however, following some confusion, he was forced to remain following proceedings from where he was.

Aquilina noted that Malta was the first EU country to implement Daphne’s Law – as the directives are known – and whilst he appreciated that the government’s approach to bring the law into force was via legal notice to be expedient, it would have been “fairer” if it was done through a White Paper.

Whilst he acknowledged that SLAPPs were a worldwide phenomenon, he pointed out that the most “memorable” local SLAPP was when head of Pilatus Bank Ali Sadr overtly attempted to silence Daphne Caruana Galizia by filing court proceedings against her in Arizona in the United States of America.

This was in the run-up to the 2017 general elections, and Aquilina said that once the election was won by the Labour Party, Sadr delayed proceedings with the PN MP claiming that his mind was at rest with a renewed Labour administration.

Aquilina pointed out that when Caruana Galizia was assassinated, all proceedings by Sadr were retracted thereby proving that it was a clear case of SLAPP.

He said that the PN’s attitude is to have “minimal amendments with the greatest significance” since it wants general consensus. 

On his part, Minister for Justice Jonathan Attard began by noting that this was a good time to give a run-down of the Labour government’s previous actions to protect journalists such as its removal of criminal libel and brought in the first anti-SLAPP legislation.

He continued that it is “inexplicable” that the opposition calls for an improvement to the legal notice yet simultaneously demands a White Paper.

Attard tabled various amendments to the PN’s motion.  The amendments removed the PN’s proposed measures and instead proposed that Parliament resolves to recognise the government’s “commitment” to get the anti-SLAPP law approved and to become the first country to implement it; to encourage the government to make further consultations on the Bills already presented and; to urge the government to ensure that its consultation takes into account a wider view of society such as those who were victims of slander.

Attard pointed out that within the Council of Ministers, he had personally appealed for the legislation not to be diluted and upon the approval of the directive returned to Malta and transposed it. He stressed that the government never planned to stop there, pointing out that three bills are still pending to improve on the anti-SLAPP laws.

Attard said that it is the governments wish to have these “carved in the Constitution and to truly acknowledge the fourth pillar of democracy.” He added, “They were not perfect but they recommended by the experts and would have offered a level of protection that could be built on like any other law.”

With regards to the deterrent fine for SLAPP, Attard said that what the PN was proposing was “disproportionate and illogical” and raises the question, ‘How can a truly slandered person stand to gain €11,600 but also risk losing €100,000?’ He went on to point out that implementing the PN’s amendments would discourage victims of slander from seeking justice.

“You can’t approach this with a populist attitude and a mindset lacking good will,” Attard said, referring to the ‘right to be forgotten’ – which the PN’s motion sought to remove when it comes to SLAPP cases. He pointed out that this will lead to abuse of the GDPR and, “We already have enough abuse.”

Attard stressed that the PN’s proposals would extend the SLAPP protection not just to traditional journalists but also to “compulsive liars such as Jason Azzopardi.”

“We would be doing a disservice to all journalists,” he said, as he insisted that people like Azzopardi are “willing to use all procedures available to reach their aims and power.”

Culture Minister Owen Bonnici meanwhile also questioned the statistic that Malta has the highest number of SLAPP cases per-capita in the EU.

At no point in either of their speeches did Attard or Bonnici mention Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was murdered in a car bombing in 2017 and after whom the EU’s anti-SLAPP directive is named.

PN MP Claudette Buttigieg meanwhile said that she was “shocked” to hear what the government speakers had said, noting that their words had forced her to wonder whether she was in a democratic EU state or not.

She said that the government’s current “obsession” was with the PN “being extremists and are trying to turn the people against us. I thought I was in North Korea.”

“It is clear as crystal that the PN is in favour of anti-SLAPP but it is the minimum. This is a lost opportunity for us to be an example to other countries,” Buttigieg said and bolstered her argument with a 2024 letter to Attard by the Daphne Foundation.

With regards to the ‘right to be forgotten’ as advocated by Attard she said, “Should someone attempt a SLAPP, after this is done, they can hide away. Who do they want us to forget? Daphne Caruana Galizia certainly, but also those who want to crush journalists. They may be happy with the minimum, but the Opposition expects much more,” she added.

PL backbencher and former minister Carmelo Abela also addressed Parliament in what turned out to be an emotional speech, as he spoke of his own experience fighting baseless accusations.

Former PN MP Jason Azzopardi had alleged that Abela had provided assistance to the robbers who had carried out the 2010 HSBC heist.  Abela filed libel proceedings over the allegation, which he won last September, with Azzopardi condemned to pay €7,000 in libel damages.

Abela had to pause more than once as he discussed the effects that the case had had on his wife, who was going through an illness at the time, and children. There was some arguing in the Chamber as a PL MP accused somebody on the PN’s side of the House of laughing at Abela.

Meanwhile, new PL MP Ramona Attard used what was her second speech in Parliament in order to call for the removal of the stipulation of a maximum penalty that a court can mete out in the case that someone is found guilty of libel.

She also reiterated her statements from late last year where she expressed herself in favour of the reintroduction of criminal libel – something that the Labour government itself had removed some years back.