Former PN MP Jason Azzopardi has turned to the Constitutional Court for redress after he lost a libel case filed against him by PL backbencher Carmelo Abela.
Azzopardi was found guilty of defaming Abela last year when he alleged that the former minister was linked to the failed 2010 HSBC heist. Abela worked at the bank at the time the heist took place, and Azzopardi alleged that he was in on the plot and was working in cahoots with the masterminds behind it.
However the courts said that Azzopardi’s allegations lacked foundation, first in 2024 and then again through the Appeals Court last June, and the former PN MP was condemned to pay Abela €7,000 in damages.
In his constitutional application though, Azzopardi argued that the courts had ignored crucial facts that had emerged during the proceedings.
“Statements from the criminals themselves emerged publicly, and some of them even confirmed them under oath, that explicitly accused Carmelo Abela of being complicit in the organisation of the HSBC hold-up,” Azzopardi wrote.
“They also accused in writing to the European Commission (something unheard of in the history of the European Union) and Carmelo Abela took no action against them, not even to ask the Police Commissioner to open criminal proceedings for calumny that was done against him,” the former PN MP continued.
He said in his court application that one of the Degiorgio brothers had stepped off the witness stand and stood face to face with Abela before telling him that he was still yet to uncover the PL MP on a robbery in Santa Venera. Azzopardi said that even in this case, Abela said nothing and took no steps against him despite holding the post of MP.
Azzopardi said that the police had established that the HSBC heist perpetrators had an accomplice inside the bank who had showed them how to navigate the corridors to reach the bank vault with haste, and had provided electronic keys to open five security doors.
The lawyers also claimed that while Abela is still listed as an HSBC employee, he had not returned to work for the bank after he ceased to be part of Cabinet in 2022 – because the bank apparently does not want him to return.
Azzopardi argued that the comments that he was found guilty of were made in a political context between two MPs and were a matter of public interest.
He contended that punishing political expression on a matter of public interest, particularly when the matter had generated such discussion and involved alleged criminal behaviour by a public official, was not in line with the principles of a democratic society and indeed could cause a chilling effect on political discourse on matters of public interest which has the potential to be censured.
He argued that while political discourse is not protected in an absolute manner by the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights, that right can only be limited where the limitation is necessary and when there is “a pressing social need.”
Azzopardi continued that the allegations that he wrote about – that a member of Cabinet was allegedly involved in a bank heist – are certainly worthy of being a public matter not least because of the seriously concerns it raises about a person with power in the country’s government.
Azzopardi is seeking damages and reimbursement for all expenses incurred after the Court of Appeal’s judgment, including the €7,000 in damages and legal costs he was ordered to pay.