Manuel Delia is claiming that a court ban on public comments and discussions about Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder case and Yorgen Fenech, breached his freedom of expression and weakened the role of journalists to inform the public.
The blogger and civil society activist has filed constitutional proceedings seeking to revoke that ban which, he argued, not only went beyond the court’s powers but impacted society in general.
The issue revolves around a decision taken by the Criminal Court, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, during proceedings concerning businessman Yorgen Fenech who is currently awaiting trial over his alleged complicity in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
A video blog by Delia, reproduced on NEWZ.mt’s Facebook page, was aired on the same day that the judge had banned similar comments by Caruana Galizia’s lawyer, Jason Azzopardi.
Following Delia’s video blog, Madam Justice Grima handed down a decree whereby public declarations and discussions related to Fenech’s criminal case were prohibited.
Only media reports about open court hearings were spared the ban after the court observed that there were “people who feel they may breach court orders with impunity.”
Anyone in breach of that order could be held in contempt of court.
Delia’s video blog was pulled down.
The blogger filed an application requesting the judge to reconsider her decision. That request was turned down.
Now Delia has taken his grievances before the constitutional courts, pointing out that that was the only path to follow after having exhausted the ordinary remedy of asking the judge to reconsider the ban.
In his application, Delia states that justice for Caruana Galizia and her stories is yet to be served.
As a journalist, Delia said he has a duty to inform the public about current affairs and matters of public interest.
One of those was Caruana Galizia’s assassination which triggered a chilling effect on the media and freedom of expression, making the headlines not only locally but worldwide.
The Criminal Court had imposed the ban without allowing Delia to make his arguments. The court decree rejecting his request for reconsideration lacked motivation, he added.
Delia also argued that the ban interfered with his right to freedom of expression and questioned whether it was legal.
The ban, he said, went beyond the parameters of the powers granted to the court in the Criminal Code.
That article banned publications, written or otherwise. But the judge banned “declarations and public discussions by the media and on social media.”
All this weakened “the fourth pillar” of our democracy, since journalists’ role was to inform the public about matters of public interest and the public had the right to receive that information.
The court did not consider the impact of its ban on society, argued Delia.
Moreover, he said the decree lacked proportionality since the court failed to strike a balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to a fair hearing.
The applicant thus called upon the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to declare such breach of rights, to revoke and annul the ban and to award compensation for the rights violation, payable by the State.
Lawyers Eve Borg Costanzi and Matthew Cutajar signed the application.