Adverts aired on state broadcaster PBS related to the 2025 budget were not providing information regarding the budget measures but were ‘advertising political slogans’, a court heard on Wednesday.
The court presided by Judge Miriam Hayman was hearing arguments made by the Nationalist Party, which believe the ads are in breach of broadcasting laws.
PBS lawyers argue that is not true and say the national broadcaster has always aired similar spots around budget time.
Last month, the PN successfully obtained a court order which temporarily barred PBS from airing the spots, which featured Prime Minister Robert Abela.
The PN say the spots are “unconstitutional” because they break laws that prohibit partisan content on public broadcasting platforms.
PN general secretary Michael Piccinino, along with PN MPs Claudette Buttigieg and Karol Aquilina were also present in court on Wednesday. Also present in court were PBS CEO Charles Dalli and chairperson Keith Chetcuti, as well as Broadcasting Authority chairman Frank Farrugia.
Acting on behalf of the PN, lawyer Paul Borg Olivier asked the court if such spots were informative or not.
He said the advert spots provided no information on the budget measures, but described the spots as being a ‘thematic campaign’ – in other words, curated around a central theme or idea.
One example of a thematic campaign, he said, was McDonald’s using ads to push its “I’m lovin’ it” slogan.
The PBS budget spots did something similar, the lawyer argued, based on the slogan “Pajjiz ta’ Kwalita’”. [Quality country].
The ads in question feature people talking what “quality of life” means to them, as well as Prime Minister Robert Abela pledging to deliver a “quality country”.
“The spots are not giving any information, but what they are doing is selling a slogan,” Borg Olivier said.
Borg Olivier said PBS should follow the provisions of Article 119 of the Constitution.
That article requires the Broadcasting Authority to ensure “due impartiality” “in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to public policy.”
That applied even though PBS was funded by the government, Borg Oliver said.
While the budget speech was delivered in parliament last week, it must still be debated and voted on by MPs, he noted.
He said the Opposition also broadcast the same spots on its media, but would also slot spots with a different opinion of the budget.
‘Divorce is a political controversy, not the budget’
On behalf of PBS, lawyer Edward Gatt said the Broadcasting Authority plays an informative role and has a duty to air informative adverts.
Gatt argued that Article 119 did not apply in this case, as the budget was neither an issue of political controversy nor one concerning industrial relations.
“Let us be realistic, how can you link the budget measures to a political controversy,” he asked.
“The annual Budget is done by any government, and cannot fall under the category of political controversy. If we spoke about divorce, then that is a political controversy.”
Borg Olivier disagreed with that argument. If the budget was not approved by parliament then the “government could fall”, he noted.
He also noted that last year, both PBS and the BA were found to have violated the PN’s fundamental rights.
Judge Hayman said she will decide on the prohibitory injunction sometime next week.
Lawyers Mark Vassallo and Edward Gatt appeared for the PBS and lawyer Mark Refalo represent the Broadcasting Authority.