A court has turned down the Nationalist Party’s bid to block Public Broadcasting Services from airing government spots related to the 2025 budget.

The PN had argued in an application filed earlier this month that the spots breached rules on political impartiality. 

“In such a small politically polarised country it is difficult for a budget not to have a political element [but] it all depends on the degree,” said Madam Justice Miriam Hayman when delivering judgment on Monday.

The crux of the issue stemmed from an application for a warrant of prohibitory injunction filed by the PN and provisionally upheld by the court to stop the national broadcaster from airing the spots featuring Prime Minister Robert Abela.

The PN claimed that those spots bore “political overtones” which resulted in a lack of balance and impartiality in its regard and consequently breached the party’s fundamental right to freedom of expression and protection against discrimination.

The court said that political parties undoubtedly had every right for balance as far as the national broadcaster was concerned, even though they also transmitted their views on the party stations.

The PN did not want to suffer political prejudice through the government’s publicity related to budget measures.

However, on the other hand, people had a collective fundamental right to an explanation and analysis of both positive and negative budgetary measures, over and above the current administration’s interest to flaunt its socio-economic success.

The budget was nothing more than the government’s plans for future expenditure and management of public funds, benefits and taxes. The budget also explained which benefits were to be afforded to certain categories of society and laid down the plans for future investments.

The court said it found it difficult to detach the budget and every publicity spot related to it from the political element.

Yet such “supposedly educational spots” could obviously be done in a more “politically sensible manner,” remarked the judge. Rather than simply sending out the message of “I gave you so much more than others [did],” such spots could obviously carry a more educational message.

Although every budget spot was political “the dose must be controlled and balance must be respected,” it said. 

For instance, a spot featuring the Prime Minister giving some explanation “surely reaches undesirable levels.”

“An educational explanatory spot need not irritate the opponent in order to fulfil its purpose towards the public.”

That was where the Broadcasting Authority entered the scene, ensuring that such balance was maintained, the court said. 

When analyzing the legal requisites for the PN’s injunction request to succeed, the court observed that the manner in which the request was worded meant that it could never be upheld against the Authority.

“Prohibiting the Authority from doing what the law allowed it to do is nonsensical.”

The PN had to prove that it had a prima facie right that had to be protected and unless it was protected through an injunction, the applicant would suffer irremediable prejudice.

The court observed that the PN had filed a complaint before the Broadcasting Authority which upheld that complaint and ordered PBS to allocate 15 minutes of airtime to PN spots.

Moreover, those spots were to feature the party logo and were to be aired at prime time, during the break in the 8pm news bulletin.

The PN had other “more effective” remedies to counter the lack of balance it complained about.

In fact, its recourse to the Authority was more effective and immediate.

When all was considered the court concluded that the PN failed to prove the prejudice it would suffer unless the injunction was confirmed.

It was not sufficient to express its upset over the state of affairs but it had to prove that the lack of balance was so bad and placed the party in such a disadvantage that there was a disproportionate chilling effect that was “catastrophic” for the Opposition.

If the element of proportionality were to be interpreted in a purely subjective manner, every warrant of this kind would be upheld with “all dire consequences upon the country’s administration.”

During the proceedings, PBS exhibited recordings of budget spots aired when the PN was in government.

But the court was not impressed.

This was no solace to anyone, neither the PN nor the party currently in government, the court said. 

The recordings presented by PBS prove that “nothing ever changed except for the players to the game.”

Lawyers Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo assisted PBS. Lawyer Mark Refalo assisted the Broadcasting Authority. Lawyer Paul Borg Olivier assisted the PN.