A constitutional court has awarded author Mark Camilleri €500 after determining he suffered discrimination, but ruled that the non-renewal of his contract as Chairperson of the National Book Council was not illegal.

The court case centred around Camilleri's claims that his contract as Book Council head was not renewed, and that his book A Rent Seeker's Paradise was not reviewed due to his criticism of the government and the Labour Party.

Camilleri had argued that the National Book Council is meant to be autonomous from external interference, with a purpose that includes promoting books and representing the interests of Maltese authors and publishers. He said the denial of his request to have his book reviewed went against the very purpose for which the National Book Council was created.

The court record quoted a discussion between the executive director and Mark Vella, a member of the National Book Council, regarding the review of Camilleri's book.

The executive director expressed concern that the book could contain libellous content, stating, "...the book could possibly and potentially contain libellous content, and felt that it was in his interest to protect the interests of the Council."

Camilleri also argued that the National Book Council was treating him differently compared to other authors and publishers, based solely on his political opinions. He claimed this was discriminatory.

On the government's decision to not renew his contract, a number of testimonies were heard in court.

During testimony, Michael Mercieca cited an instance where Camilleri allegedly sent him to shops and restaurants to encourage attendance at the Book Festival.

Andrew Ricca alleged that Camilleri had even pressured him to ensure contractors working on the Council's restoration project in Valletta declared lower amounts than they were owed, in order to save the Council money on architects' fees. Ricca also mentioned a dispute where Camilleri allegedly wanted to employ a person who did not rank first in an interview, based on the established criteria, but who had more extensive experience.

The court acknowledged that these decisions appeared to be well-intentioned and in the Council's interest. However, the court emphasised that good intentions do not negate the fact that the methods used were directly contrary to rules, procedures, and even laws designed to ensure transparency and fairness in the public sector.

The court also noted there were instances where Camilleri spoke to employees in a "vulgar, insolent and aggressive" manner.

Lawyer David Bonello assisted Camilleri during proceedings.