Balancing public accountability with personal privacy rights is "one of the most enduring tensions in democratic societies" said Dr Natalino Fenech, a senior lecturer in media and journalism at MCAST, when asked for his thoughts on the ethics of reporting on the private lives of public figures.

There have recently been two instances involving well-known personalities and allegations of abuse or domestic violence.

Justin Haber, a former national football team goalkeeper, resigned from his position as a Floriana Labour Party councillor after he was found guilty of threatening "to behead" his sister, Pearl Vella Haber. In a statement on the social media, Justin Haber apologised for his actions.

Robert Aquilina resigned from his post as honorary president of the NGO Repubblika at the beginning of June, along with having his role with Fondazione Falcone suspended, after an alleged domestic violence incident.

On 12 June, his wife Jeanette Aquilina formally requested that the court discontinue the case the police brought against him, saying her statements to the police were being distorted and misused in a deliberate effort to damage her husband's reputation. She stated that the conflict with her husband was rooted in private, familial tensions rather than criminal behaviour. "At no point did the situation escalate into physical violence," she stated.

The court accepted the request to drop domestic violence charges against Aquilina. Following this, he resumed his role with Fondazione Falcone, but declined to return to the position of honorary president of Repubblika.

The Malta Independent on Sunday spoke with Fenech and asked for the lecturer's thoughts regarding whether private matters of public figures, especially those involved in politics, are relevant to the public. He was also asked if he believes it is appropriate for public figures to have their lives placed under more scrutiny than the average person.

Fenech (above) said that elected representatives of the people need to accept a higher degree of criticism than anyone else, but added that "the golden rule" is that whatever happens in private lives should remain private, irrespective of the position an individual may hold, "unless what happens could have a bearing on decisions that may affect public lives".

He said that factors such as financial dealings, potential conflicts of interest or behaviour, which directly contradicts a public figure's stated position, as well as behaviour which could affect their judgement are all matters of legitimate public interest. "On the other hand," he continued, "personal relationships, family matters or private struggles that do not impact governance deserve more protection".

Fenech commented that voters reasonably want to understand the character and judgment of those they elect. He added that people also want to assess the moral make-up of activists. This, however, creates a "sliding scale problem", he remarked. "How much scrutiny is justified, and who gets to draw the line?"

"Cases of domestic violence are criminal in nature. The case of Dr Aquilina was relevant given his role in a rule of law organisation, where public trust and moral authority are central to the organisation's mission," Fenech stated. The fact that Aquilina resigned as a member and honorary president of Repubblika showed his understanding of higher standards for advocacy leaders, he said.

Fenech said that Haber resigned from his position on the Floriana Local Council only after he was found guilty. "His case did not attract media attention before because his case was not leaked," Fenech said. "This shows a most concerning dynamic. Private matters become weapons for political opponents rather than genuine accountability issues, and potentially deter suitable or qualified people from taking on public roles."

Fenech remarked that "journalism thrives on leaks", but added that there is, however, a "consideration" that journalists have to make. "What motivates their sources to give them leaks? Is it always public interest? Or are they sometimes used for political or other ends?"

The Malta Independent on Sunday also spoke with Dr Kurt Borg (above), a senior lecturer at the University of Malta's Department of Policy, Politics and Governance. The newsroom spoke with Borg prior to Aquilina's charges being dropped.

Borg said that the distinction between the public and private sphere is an important one when speaking about liberal democracy.

He said that, for example, an individual's religious beliefs or sexual orientation are not matters of public interest and should therefore be free from intervention or intrusion by authorities and from public judgment. However, he said, the stories related to Haber and Aquilina are not of this kind.

"First of all, Justin Haber was an elected representative at the local government level. This therefore raises important questions of accountability and public trust in the institutions he represented," Borg stated. The notion of "role morality" is an important one in this instance, meaning that in the same way that holding an office grants someone specific powers, the same applies with regard to certain obligations, including obligations of disclosure. To illustrate his point, he used the obligations that cabinet members disclose their financial assets as an example, "since a cabinet member's financial assets could impact their decision-making at a public level".

Borg said that it is a well-established principle in liberal democracies that aspects of a public individual's private life, particularly in the case of elected representatives, are placed under more scrutiny than the average person. He added that the same applies with regard to friendships and other informal ties that an elected representative or person in power may have. He commented that while the friendships of the average person are not a matter of public interest, it is in the public interest to know that an elected representative enjoys or perhaps even benefits from relationships with certain individuals, which could then result in decisions potentially being affected by a conflict of interest. "This shows that, ethically speaking, the bar is higher than that of the ordinary citizen," Borg remarked.

Speaking on Haber's case, Borg said that this case is a matter of public interest as it casts a negative light on the form of governance that the public demands of its institutions. He continued that in this regard, "the swift decision to submit his resignation following discussions with his political party was to be expected". although Borg remarked that one could question whether such discussions were even necessary, "since nothing short of a resignation would have been acceptable in this case".

"There is also the matter pertaining to the person who was threatened by Haber," Borg stated, referring to Haber's sister. "She went public with disclosing her story, in which she described what she called a long history of domestic abuse. Online comments that were criticising her decision to go public with her story are not acceptable, in my view." He commented that it is "quite bewildering" that Pearl Vella Haber was criticised for disclosing personal issues. He continued that it is well within her right to call out the abuse that she faced and to substantiate her claims in court, as well as to go public if that is how she wanted to deal with the case.

Aquilina's case "is different in significant ways", Borg stated, "though it too raises questions of public interest", as he said that though Aquilina has never been an elected official, he was a leading figure in an anti-corruption NGO. "His high profile as a public person is a matter of public interest."

Borg commented that Aquilina's case raises questions, particularly in light of "the terrible track record that institutions have had in recent years when dealing with reports of domestic violence in a timely manner". Borg made mention of how Aquilina had resigned from his positions in the NGOs he was involved in, adding that this was the expected behaviour in such circumstances.

The UoM senior lecturer was asked for his thoughts regarding how Haber and Aquilina responded in their cases, as well as for his thoughts as to whether concerns about privacy in such instances are valid or whether the role of a public figure overrules concerns. Borg replied that given Haber's role as an elected official and the nature of the allegations and eventual conviction, "the Labour Party's swift reaction and his decision to tender his resignation go to highlight that, in such cases, one's public position as an elected official becomes untenable".

In Aquilina's case, Borg spoke of how Aquilina had requested that his family's privacy be respected, which Borg commented was not an unfair request. "Excessive speculation and gossip about the case are not acceptable, especially if these go beyond the accountability in view of the positions he occupied within the NGOs he was involved in."

Borg stated that he does not think Aquilina's disapproval of having information about him leaked can be compared to other cases when information about MPs was leaked to the press, as Aquilina is not a sitting MP. Borg continued that in the case of information such as private chats with MPs being leaked, instances that reveal information showing that an MP's decision-making was negatively impacted are "a wholly different matter, which makes the case much more of public interest than Aquilina's".

Borg concluded that he thinks that the case of Aquilina and Haber involved elements of public interest and did not breach their privacy, given that their roles required public accountability and concerned the legitimacy of institutions and organisations.