It was most unfair and unjust on the part of the Broadcasting Authority to fine Smash Television Lm500 for its interview with European Parliament election candidate Norman Lowell during the programme Minibus.

Assuming the Broadcasting Authority had a legal right to fine Smash TV (no one can be a judge in one's own cause), Smash Television had no control over what Mr Lowell might have said during the June 15 programme.

I was away from Malta on that date, though I presume that the programme went on air live, as usually occurs with the series Minibus presented by Andrew Farrugia.

Smash Television was the only television station that represented the true principles of broadcasting pluralism during the recent European Parliament election campaign. Were it not for Smash TV, the electorate in Malta and Gozo would not even have been aware of the 10 independent candidates, including the two representing Alpha: Partit Politiku, that were also contesting these elections, as the three other TV stations and their respective radio stations hardly made any reference in their many political programmes to the "independent" candidates.

Indeed, once it was becoming clear that there was a strong element of serious and constructive opposition from these independent candidates, the established political parties and then even Alternattiva acted as if these independent candidates were not on the European election campaign trail at all, a move which actually indicated how unsuitable were these three political parties for the political culture which the European Parliament elections were meant to generate.

With all due respect, if the Broadcasting Authority had any authority at all it would seem they should have intervened and saw to it that PBS, Net TV and Super One aired programmes which gave adequate time and space for the independent candidates to be able to promote their particular political programmes and this in terms of the Broadcasting Act. Smash TV was the only one that conformed to our Broadcasting Act in this matter and the Broadcasting Authority should have commended Smash TV and not, to add insult to injury, fine the station. Is this some attempt to smash Smash TV?

It is the responsibility of any interviewee to act responsibly when being interviewed in any section of the media, without however suffering any hindrance to the fundamental rights of liberty of expression and speech. Naturally, the interviewer must be competent enough to control the interviewee without interrupting the flow of a logical argument as, for instance, happens in other local, very popular programmes where an analytical discussion of any important theme is non-existent, despite the huge popularity the programme enjoys with the masses.

Again, Smash TV allowed all the participants in the election campaign to voice their opinions in accordance with their political platform within reasonable time and space, an asset which was provided by no other TV station, including our national broadcasting station when it was its paramount duty to provide such space.

Some have queried whether the Broadcasting Authority had some hidden objective when fining Smash Lm500 when, in reality, it is the considered opinion of a number of eligible persons that the BA had no democratic legal right to do so in accordance with the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

There were other remedies in accordance with the law that could have been provided both on Smash TV and on other broadcasting outlets without the BA having to resort to fines against Smash. Indeed, it should have been the other broadcasting stations that should have been duly penalised for running counter to the principles of objectivity and impartiality when it came to broadcasting political issues during the European Parliament election campaign.

The BA went even further when it stated that it would have normally fined Smash TV Lm200 but in this instance it deemed fit to augment this fine by a further Lm300 so that the fine would stand at Lm500!

The Times reported (July 8) that Smash had objected to the procedures, arguing that the body charging it was the same as that judging it.

The Broadcasting Authority knows very well that currently there is a lawsuit pending before the first hall of the civil courts, presided over by Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri, which precisely relates to this moot, legal point. The parties to this lawsuit are none other than Smash Communications Ltd and the Broadcasting Authority.

This is not a matter against any individual personally, because currently the Broadcasting Authority is regaled with a former Chief Justice and former president of the Court of Appeal, two experienced lawyers, a legal procurator and a person known amiably as Malta's broadcasting fox, who himself was an ex-chief executive of the authority for many, many years.

These highly competent persons in the broadcasting media know full well that at some time or other this issue had to be decided before a court of law in accordance with the fundamental principles of the rule of law as no-one can be a judge in one's own cause. Also, there is no doubt about it that the authority's chief executive is part and parcel of the Broadcasting Authority, even though the BA reasons out that it is the chief executive who issues any particular accusation and the board assesses the legal arguments for and against any particular accusation.

There is in fact no categorical and undoubted clear distinction between the chief executive of the Broadcasting Authority and the Broadcasting Authority and, therefore, there is much sense in the legal submission that this is an instance were one is being a judge in one's own cause. Thus, it is no argument for the authority to dismiss this objection by merely stating that the Broadcasting Act provided for a fair process within which those who made the accusation did not take part in the deliberations as judge: one humbly begs to differ on this point!

Hence, one sincerely hopes that this is not an attempt to smashing Smash as this would go against the fundamental principles of a pluralistic broadcasting law which only Smash TV fulfilled and which was grossly violated by the other broadcasting media controlled as they are by the two major political parties.

One hopes a solution will be found in this matter by duly awaiting a court decision on this matter until pronounced res iudicata even if it has to imply an eventual decision by the European Court of Fundamental Right, as we apparently seem to be forgetting when it suits us that we are now members of the European Union!

www.emmybezzina.org

lawyer@emmybezzina.org