Journalism is a mirror to society. It should also be a window into what is happening behind closed doors, away from the public gaze.

And that is why Monday’s decision by the Constitutional Court, presided by Judge Toni Abela, delivered a resounding victory for the public’s right to know.

The case was brought forward by blogger and activist Manuel Delia after he was denied reasonable access to assess living conditions in prisons and migrant detention centres.

It came after Times of Malta reported in October 2019 that a group of migrants charged with their involvement in a riot were humiliated, stripped, hosed down in the prison courtyard and given minimal water to drink.

In a normal country, this incident would have sparked widespread outrage and disciplinary action. But not Malta.

The judge quoted extensively from several decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, including a ruling that “freedom of expression does not stop at the gates of army barracks or of prisons”.

The court makes it clear that the State is obliged to provide access to journalists, even those that are habitually critical of the government. In a scathing judgment, the judge said there is “no room for people thinking ‘I am the king, I am the law’”, in what appears to be a rebuke of the testimony given by former prisons director Alex Dalli.

The court’s ruling should serve as a wake-up call to the authorities that they cannot abuse their power to silence criticism or hide their wrongdoing.

It reinforces the principle that the free flow of information is a cornerstone of democracy and reinforces the notion that nobody is above scrutiny and that transparency is non-negotiable.

It is a victory for many detainees, especially asylum seekers, who are repeatedly facing human rights breaches when in the custody of the State.

We can only hope that this landmark judgment will really start a process of change

This is a welcome development in a country where the government has a habit of ignoring the media at best, muzzling it at worse.

How many times have legitimate media questions about abuse in closed quarters been ignored by people in positions of power?

How many times have we heard the term “national interest” bandied about to justify the silence?

How many times have we been cited “security issues” to stifle investigations into claims of wrongdoing inside the prisons or detention camps?

How many times have we been told by the Armed Forces of Malta or the government that they have “no information” about yet another reported boat of migrants in distress, only to learn later they have been pushed back to Libya?

How many times have our freedom or information requests been blatantly shot down for no apparent reason? The list goes on.

We can only hope that this landmark judgment will really start a process of change.

We are not calling for an open-door policy for prison – of course there should be a proper process to gain access – but it is important to acknowledge that society can derive value from shining a light into its most reclusive corners.

We can only hope the government does not appeal the court’s decision. Doing so would only serve to further reinforce concerns that the government speaks about media freedom with a forked tongue.

Instead of appealing, it should make sure that a serious, independent inquiry into the events of October 2019 is made public, even if there is clearly no widespread anger about the incident. This case should really open the door to the public’s right to know.