The president of the Malta Union of Teachers told court on Monday that while he accepted criticism he could not accept the "lies" of a rival education union which MUT is suing for defamation.
Last year the Union for Professional Educators' leader Graham Sansone alleged at a press conference that the MUT had secretly struck a deal with the government but was threatening to strike as a “demonstration of power” to its members. At the time, the MUT was locked in collective agreement negotiations with the government.
That press conference triggered libel proceedings by MUT against UPE for allegedly “fabricating and spreading defamatory statements”.
On Monday, MUT boss Marco Bonnici took the witness stand in the libel suit, providing a timeline of events leading up to the union’s court action and pointing out specific snippets from UPE’s statement which were deemed to be defamatory.
When cross-examined by UPE lawyer, Jason Azzopardi, as to whether he “accepted criticism directed against his leadership”, Bonnici replied, “I don’t object to criticism. I object to lies”.
UPE’s statement was a reaction to MUT’s industrial action.
“It was intended to disrupt our instructions at a very delicate moment through information that was not true,” said Bonnici.
The harm was amplified since their rival’s statements were taken up and reported by all media, creating a “multiplier effect”.
MUT strongly rebutted one particular allegation that the government’s financial proposals had been “accepted by the union”.
Questioned further by Azzopardi, Bonnici said that the government had put forward two proposals to the union and those “were not accepted”.
Pressed to divulge the names of those representing the government in the negotiations, Bonnici was reluctant, while his lawyer, Keith Borg, voiced objections.
The UPE needed those names to defend its claims.
“Then I’ll ask him [Bonnici] to present the government’s proposals up to November 11,” suggested Azzopardi.
But again, Bonnici turned down that suggestion.
“See?... Then you shouldn’t have filed the libel,” hit back Azzopardi.
Negotiations were still ongoing and the UPE’s request for those proposals went beyond the scope of the libel, countered the applicant’s lawyer.
“Let’s not allow these proceedings to be used for ulterior motives: to get information which [UPE] has no right to, even in these proceedings,” said Borg.
Azzopardi suggested that the requested proposals could be presented under seal and made accessible only to the court and the parties.
The UPE’s press release ran along the lines that MUT had accepted the government’s proposals, and for MUT not to admit that UPE was right, the MUT “did not wrap up negotiations,” Azzopardi claimed.
MUT subsequently filed these proceedings, claiming that what UPE said was not right, but the court could not access this information to assess the veracity of this “cornerstone” issue, went on the respondent’s lawyer.
Such government proposals would doubtlessly be in written form.
“Without them the court cannot decide whether UPE expressed an honest opinion,” finished off Azzopardi, stressing that this was crucial to the libel.
However, MUT’s lawyer did not agree, pointing out that he drew “no comfort” as to an ulterior motive, even if the requested proposals were to be presented under seal.
The court, presided over by magistrate Rachel Montebello, said that a decision on this point would be delivered in chambers.
The case continues.