Opposition Leader awarded Lm2,000 libel damages

Magistrate Silvio Meli yesterday upheld a libel suit filed by Opposition Leader Alfred Sant against former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami.

The former Prime Minister was ordered by the court to pay Lm2,000 libel damages.

Plaintiff claimed he had been libelled in the course of a political debate aired on Television Malta on March 6, 2003.

According to Dr Sant, Dr Fenech Adami had alleged that when plaintiff was chairman of the student selection board for entry to the University of Malta he had denied Dr Fenech Adami's son the opportunity to attend a university course.

On his part, Dr Fenech Adami pleaded that his speech consisted of fair comment.

Magistrate Meli pointed out that the dispute arose from a sensitive political debate broadcast at prime time on the last day in which political activities were allowed prior to the national referendum on the subject of Malta's European Community membership.

In his testimony, Dr Sant told the court that at one stage of the debate Dr Fenech Adami had seemed uninterested in the subject under discussion and had focused instead on Dr Sant in his personal capacity.

Plaintiff said Dr Fenech Adami had declared that Dr Sant was the chairman of the student selection board and that Dr Sant had refused to allow Dr Fenech Adami's son Beppe to attend the university course for which he had applied.

According to Dr Sant, Dr Fenech Adami had threatened him by saying that these facts would not be forgotten.

Plaintiff categorically denied the allegations and claimed that the attack on him by defendant was premeditated.

Dr Sant added he had never been involved in any manner with Dr Fenech Adami's son when the latter applied to attend university and that he was totally extraneous to the son's entry application.

Magistrate Meli noted that Dr Sant had confirmed he had presided over the student selection board but that this was limited to the academic year 1983-1984. He had not been involved with the board in 1986 when Dr Fenech Adami's son had been interviewed.

Furthermore, Dr Sant claimed that the board's work had been carried out with the utmost transparency and in strict accordance with the objective criteria that had been publicly established.

The court heard evidence that Dr Fenech Adami's son had applied for a university place for the academic year 1986-1987. The student selection board at the time was composed of Lawrence A. Farrugia, Connie Bonello, Joseph Micallef (now a judge), Alfred Buhagiar, Vincent Esposito, Emanuel Ellul, Noel Zarb Adami, Peter Baldacchino, Anna Mallia, Frederick Fearne and Paul Sultana Trevisan. Benny Borg Bonello was board secretary.

It resulted that the board's criteria were established by law and consisted in the allocation of points on the basis of academic achievement.

Specific points were allocated to candidates who were in employment.

Evidence produced showed that at the time in question Dr Fenech Adami's son had been employed by John Sullivan who had been requested to attend the board's sitting with the son. However, Magistrate Meli pointed out that Sullivan did not have a clear recollection of a number of details of the case and had insisted that Dr Sant had presided over the board when it was manifestly clear he had not.

Mr Sullivan had convinced Dr Fenech Adami of his version and Dr Fenech Adami had based his allegations upon Mr Sullivan's version without having examined it.

The allegations were made on an occasion when it was obvious that they would have a devastating effect.

Magistrate Meli noted that Dr Fenech Adami's defence was based on the plea that the allegations constituted fair comment. However, in order for this plea to succeed, defendant had to prove that the comment was fair and bona fide. A comment that was untrue could not satisfy this criterion.

The Department of Information yesterday released a letter in which Dr Fenech Adami instructed his lawyer not to appeal and enclosing a cheque for Lm2,000 to be forwarded to Dr Sant.

In his letter, Dr Fenech Adami recalled that when he had been appointed President of Malta he had decided to withdraw all court cases he had instituted on his own behalf. It was in line with this decision that his lawyer had been instructed not to appeal the magistrate's judgement.