Jimmy Magro accuses PBS of gagging MLP

Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, yesterday continued to hear the case filed by the Malta Labour Party against the Broadcasting Authority and Public Broadcasting Services Ltd.

The MLP complained in its writ about the television spots broadcast on TVM with the approval of the Authority. The MLP is claiming that these spots, produced by the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC), featured elements favourable for EU membership. The MLP said its opinions on the issue were not in conformity with the information being broadcast by these spots.

In yesterday's sitting the Authority and PBS repeated their request, previously filed by way of application, for the Nationalist Party and Alternattiva Demokratika to be called into the suit as the issue also affected them.

The MLP objected to the request on the grounds that were the PN and AD of the opinion that there was an imbalance against them in broadcasting it would be up to them to initiate judicial action.

The court reserved the right to decide upon the application filed by the Authority and PBS at a later stage.

In the course of yesterday's sitting, a sworn affidavit by Jimmy Magro was filed in court. Magro, the MLP's general secretary, explained in his affidavit how the whole issue had developed and how litigation had commenced.

Magro declared that the PN and the MLP had different policies with regard to the country's relations with the EU. The MLP wished to attain the best relationship with the EU on the basis of a partnership on the model of Switzerland in the Mediterranean. On the other hand, the PN wanted full membership of the EU at all costs. The issue was therefore one of political controversy and was a subject of current public policy as described in the Constitution.

Magro added that in the past few years televised discussions on PBS dealing with political controversy or on questions of a political, economic and social nature had been contracted to the partnership "Where's Everybody?". The managers of this partnership had political connections with the PN and their programmes were, in a cunning manner, helping the PN's political agenda.

After the 1998 general elections, the PN government had embarked on a programme whereby absolute priority would be given to Malta's EU membership. MIC was established and was run by Dr Simon Busuttil, a PN activist. Dr Busuttil's appointment to the post was of a political nature. All MIC employees believed wholeheartedly in EU membership and some of them had studied in foreign universities where students were indoctrinated in favour of the EU.

Magro declared that MIC was a centre run by the PN government and its funding was provided by the public monies deriving from taxation. The tax was paid by all citizens, including those who agreed with government policy and those who disagreed.

In his affidavit Magro added that MIC ran a propaganda campaign in favour of EU membership and it issued statements, publications, adverts, organised activities and produced television programmes on both PBS and private stations.

Only MIC employees participated in these propaganda events, Magro said, and therefore the message issued was solely that in favour of EU membership. The MLP was forced to protest about the programmes broadcast by MIC on PBS that were entitled "Viva Malta".

Magro said the MLP had also protested to the Authority about the programmes entitled "Outlook Europe" and had filed a judicial protest complaining about the fact that PBS was running a systematic campaign of political discrimination against the MLP. This was particularly the case, he added, in regard to the allocation of time for programmes about the political controversy on EU membership.

The MLP had complained about the political spots broadcast by MIC on all local television stations, including PBS. The broadcasting of such spots was to be regulated solely by the Authority and the latter had prepared a series of political broadcasts. However, the MLP had refused to participate on the grounds that the series would increase the imbalance against the MLP.

After further discussions with the Authority, the latter decided to allocate a third of the airtime being utilised by MIC so that the MLP could air its policy about a partnership with the EU. In this manner there would be some form of respect towards the constitutional provisions. Magro claimed that the rules imposed by the Authority on the MLP for the broadcasting of these spots were discriminatory because the MLP's spots had to be identified as such whereas those by MIC did not have to be sourced to MIC.

When the MLP submitted its first spot, the Authority immediately objected to it. The spot had to be reworked practically on the basis of a text written by the Authority. This was the imposition of a different rule on the MLP. However, the spot was not aired on the instructions of PBS while MIC's spots were still aired. Magro claimed that the PBS decision was illegal and that PBS was gagging the MLP.

It was for this reason that the MLP had filed a case against the Authority and PBS requesting the court to provide it with a remedy.

Prof. Ian Refalo was counsel to the Authority, Dr Tonio Azzopardi was counsel to PBS and Dr Joe Brincat was counsel to the MLP.