A court will be deciding whether columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia qualifies as a journalist – a decision which affects whether she will be obliged to reveal the source who tipped her off on an alleged intimate embrace between Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi and his communications coordinator Lindsey Gambin.
Testifying before Magistrate Francesco Depasquale in a libel suit initiated against her by Mr Mizzi following a blog uploaded in November 2014, Ms Caruana Galizia said it was “an open secret” among journalists that Dr Mizzi and Ms Gambin were in an extramarital relationship because they were always together and frequented a Valletta pub after work.
Lawyer Aron Mifsud Bonnici, appearing for Dr Mizzi, asked her to reveal the identity of her source, whom she had previously described as a “very high-ranking police officer” who has since retired.
Ms Caruana Galizia refused, arguing that, as a journalist, she had every right to protect her sources. Asked whether her blog was registered under the Press Act, she replied that it was not registrable.
Lawyer Pawlu Lia, also appearing for Dr Mizzi, told the court that she therefore did not benefit from the protection granted to journalists because her blog was not a news website but a site she used to write about people.
Lawyer Joseph Zammit Maempel, appearing for Ms Caruana Galizia, intervened, arguing that she was responsible for the article and that her source of information was irrelevant to the case. Revealing the source’s identity could lead to his victimization. Ms Caruana Galizia, he continued, was an accredited journalist.
At one point, Ms Caruana Galizia approached her lawyer’s bench, close to where Dr Mizzi was seated. She was observed saying something, upon which Dr Mizzi told the court that she had threatened him. Ms Caruana Galizia rejected the allegation.
The tiff led to Magistrate Depasquale to warn both parties to guard their words or action would be taken against them.
The court will be deciding on whether Ms Caruana Galizia qualifies as a journalist on March 17. If the court decides that she does not, she might probably be ordered to reveal her source’s identity.