Transport Malta has lost two defamation cases against a freight forwarder who described it as a Mafia authority, with a magistrate ruling that its complaints constituted a “grave interference with freedom of expression”.
Magistrate Rachel Montebello ruled that a public authority such as Transport Malta was precluded from bringing defamation cases against people who criticise its operations since, being a public authority, it had to be open to “uninhibited public criticism”.
The cases revolved around comments made by e-mail and on social media by haulier Joseph Emanuel Galea who was having issues with Transport Malta, which was refusing to issue a permit for his vehicles and this effectively stopped him from continuing to work as a haulier.
Fed up of the situation he was made to face, Galea sent e-mails and took to social media to complain about the transport watchdog, describing it as a “Mafia authority” that operated “Mafia style”.
Galea alleged that the authority had acted discriminatorily when it suddenly changed its interpretation of the definition of a haulier (burdnar), insisting instead that it required him to obtain additional authorisation from customs to have his licence renewed.
Land Transport Directorate chief Pierre Montebello testified that Galea turned up at the authority’s offices in June 2020 and, while in the reception area, began accusing the authority of being a Mafia.
However, the court ignored this testimony because Galea was being accused of defamation over e-mails and social media posts. The court observed that Transport Malta had failed to exhibit the e-mails and had only exhibited screenshots from Facebook.
In her ruling, Magistrate Montebello said that, although Transport Malta was a body established by law and not a branch of the central government, it was still bound by the principle that it could not file court actions for defamation and request compensation for moral and reputational damage. Transport Malta was not a profit-making organisation for the purposes of the Media and Defamation Act and could, therefore, never suffer financial loss resulting from defamatory statements.
If it were to be allowed to file defamation cases against those citizens who criticised or condemned it, even unjustly, this would constitute a grave interference in the right to freedom of expression of one’s opinions, the magistrate ruled.
In this specific case, the comments were targeted at the authority’s maladministration and that the authority was expected to be open to uninhibited public criticism.
She, therefore, threw out the two libel suits.
Lawyer Mark Busuttil assisted Galea, while lawyer Christopher Cilia represented Transport Malta.