...Civil court orders him to pay damages

Magistrate Silvio Meli yesterday ordered the former editor of The Times, Victor Aquilina to pay Lm600 in libel damages after finding that a letter entitled "Mintoff's largesse" published on October 14, 2002 was libellous.

Former prime minister Dom Mintoff filed his writ for libel damages, claiming that the letter was libellous in his regard and aimed at diminishing his reputation. The letter was signed by J. E. Agius.

The court noted that the letter was based upon a declaration attributed to Finance Minister John Dalli on September 16, in which it was claimed that Mintoff had given a generous present to Banco di Sicilia of 14 per cent of the shares in Bank of Valletta which were worth Lm30 million.

According to the letter, this was an incredible fact, and the author added that it was strange that neither the government nor the media had investigated the matter.

Mintoff testified that he could not understand why he was made the subject of such an attack on his character.

He felt doubly insulted as, some months prior to the letter he had been involved in negotiations with the foundation responsible for The Times.

These involved a planned interview with Mintoff, but as a result of some previous publication, extraneous to this case, the relations between the parties were far from idyllic.

Plaintiff added that he had managed to find a draft from the chairman of the Malta Development Corporation of the time which had negated the allegations contained in Agius' letter.

This draft clearly showed that the allegations contained in the letter were unfounded and libellous.

Aquilina pleaded that the facts contained in the letter were true, while the comments were just and perfectly permissible in a democratic society.

He further pleaded that the letter was not libellous, and that the whole letter was covered by qualified privilege in terms of the Press Act, as it was based upon a previous publication consisting in a faithful report of a public speech made by an identified person who knew that the speech was to be published by the media.

Furthermore, the publication of the speech was justifiable in a democratic society.

On his part, Agius, the letter's author, testified that he had found it strange, after reading Dalli's statement, that the government had given shares in a local bank to third parties for free.

He confirmed that he had written the heading to the letter, and added that although he had been employed by the MDC between 1968 and 1979 he had never participated in the transfer of the bank's shares.

Magistrate Meli noted in his judgment that this case involved two delicate issues, namely the right of the citizen to be informed of matters of a political nature, and the right of the individual not to be libelled by the imputation of false facts.

Case law of the European Court of Human Rights had established that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider with regard to a politician than to a private individual, for the former laid himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed.

However, the protection of a reputation extended to politicians too, but in such cases the requirements of such protection had to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues.

The letter complained of, said the court, could be construed as containing a legitimate question, namely how shares in a local bank could be given to a foreign bank.

Had the issue been limited to this, then, in the court's opinion, the question would fall within the parameters established by the European Court of Human Rights.

However, it resulted that the question contained in the letter was based on an erroneous premise and on innuendo that moved the focus of the question from the issue to the personality.

Thus, the ordinary reader could easily be misled. This, said the court, constituted a verbal assault on plaintiff. The word "largesse" used in the letter insinuated that Mintoff had abused of his public functions and had given away public assets.

This was the greatest accusation that one could levy at a politician, whether he was active or retired.

In conclusion, the court underlined certain points so as to ensure that its unlimited and subjective discretion in terms of the Press Act would be subjected to objective criteria.

Magistrate Meli reiterated that the allegations in the letter resulted to be unfounded, while the insinuations contained therefore had not been proven.

The court added that sufficient documentation had been exhibited to disprove the letter, and that Aquilina had chosen to publish the letter without any serious verifications, but had based his decision on the fact that he knew Agius.

Furthermore, Agius had been employed in a senior position with the MDC which had negotiated on the share transfer.

The court ruled in favour of Mintoff, and ordered Aquilina to pay plaintiff Lm600 in libel damages.