Former PM's comments were within 'limits of tolerance'

Magistrate Michael Mallia yesterday dismissed a libel suit filed by Labour MP Chris Cardona against former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami.

Dr Cardona had felt libelled by a declaration made by Dr Fenech Adami in the course of a political debate broadcast on Radio RTK and Radio Malta on April 5, 2003.

According to Dr Cardona, the former Prime Minister had libelled him when he had alleged that he was one of a group of persons within the Malta Labour Party in favour of EU membership.

This allegation meant that Dr Cardona had acted contrary to the declared policy of the MLP.

Dr Cardona asked the court to order Dr Fenech Adami to pay him libel damages.

Dr Fenech Adami pleaded that the speech broadcast on the radio was fair comment on facts that were substantially correct.

Magistrate Mallia noted that on February 15 Dr Fenech Adami - who became President of Malta a year ago - had declared he was not going to testify in the case. However the court felt there was sufficient evidence to enable it to decide on the merits of the case.

It resulted that a political debate between Dr Fenech Adami and Opposition Leader Alfred Sant had been broadcast on April 5, 2003. The debate took place five days before the general election. Dr Fenech Adami had declared there were some members of the MLP, including Dr Cardona, who were not following the declared policy of the MLP.

The transcript of the debate indicated that Dr Fenech Adami had said that Dr Cardona was in favour of Malta's entry in the EU and that Dr Cardona had said so publicly.

Magistrate Mallia said Dr Cardona felt aggrieved by this speech because at the time he had occupied the position of opposition spokesman on foreign affairs and because his name was being mentioned so that he would not be elected.

The court pointed out that case law of the European Court had established that freedom of the press was one of the best means for the public to discover or form an opinion of the ideals and attitude of political leaders. The limits of acceptable criticism were accordingly wider in the case of a politician than in the case of a private individual.

A politician inevitably and knowingly laid himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large.

This had been followed by local case law, the court noted.

Magistrate Mallia added that the declaration made by Dr Fenech Adami was not itself intolerable for it would not be strange for a member of a political party to disagree with certain policies of his own party. This did not mean that such politician was not going to observe the party's policies.

Dr Fenech Adami's comments had to be viewed in the political context of the time namely just before a general election when each political party portrayed itself as being the best choice for the country.

The political parties made use of all allowed measures, including comments that were offensive to the other political party and this was permissible provided that the levels of tolerance were not breached.

The court concluded by finding that the comments made by Dr Fenech Adami did not exceed the limits of tolerance each politician had to endure and that they were therefore not libellous.