PN wins information spots case

The Nationalist Party was yesterday given the right to broadcast on the state media spots explaining Malta's relations with the European Union after a superior court judge ruled that a similar facility granted to the Malta Labour Party last month had led to an imbalance in broadcasting.

Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, upheld a writ of summons filed by the Nationalist Party and ruled that the decision taken by the Broadcasting Authority on October 1 had created an imbalance in broadcasting and was discriminatory against the PN.

The PN had claimed that Malta's proposed entry into the European Union was a matter of political controversy and a question of current policy and that the Maltese electorate would shortly be called upon to make its political choice in a referendum.

With effect from last June, the Malta Labour Party had been authorised by the Broadcasting Authority to air spots on the issue of Malta's EU membership on Public Broadcasting Services Ltd. The Authority had authorised the MLP to broadcast its spots on PBS free of charge.

The PN had repeatedly requested to be awarded the same facility to broadcast its own spots on PBS but the Authority had, in a decision of October 1, dismissed such requests.

The PN claimed in its writ the Authority was bound to ensure that suitable impartiality was maintained in broadcasting on issues of political controversy or of current public policy and this in terms of both the Broadcasting Act and the Constitution.

The Authority was bound to ensure that broadcasting facilities and time were suitably distributed between persons of different political parties.

The authorisation given to the MLP last June had created a blatant imbalance on national broadcasting for only one political party was being allowed to broadcast its beliefs on this controversial matter. Other parties, including the PN, were being deprived of such right and this was discriminatory in the PN's regard.

The PN concluded its writ by asking the court to declare that the Authority's decision of October 1 was discriminatory and to order the Authority to take all steps to ensure that the PN would be given the same rights as the MLP.

In yesterday's judgment, the court noted that the MLP had been authorised to broadcast its spots following a complaint made by Labour about the spots broadcast on PBS by the Malta-EU Information Centre.

The Authority explained it had decided that the information being broadcast by MIC was covering information disseminated by the other political parties but not by the MLP. The Authority said the MIC spots were giving information about what full membership of the EU would imply but did not refer to the stand against full membership. To redress the factual imbalance caused, the Authority said it authorised the MLP to broadcast its stand against EU membership.

Mr Justice Valenzia noted there was no doubt MIC was an autonomous entity and not a political party. This was not the case with the PN and the MLP, both of which were political parties. Thus, MIC and the PN were not the same entity and no evidence was produced to show that MIC was the spokesman for the PN, though it reflected what the PN presented as facts about EU membership. However, in terms of the Constitution, MIC could not be compared to a political party such as the PN.

Thus, the decision by the Authority to authorise the MLP to broadcast its spots on EU membership, which decision was taken to redress the imbalance the Authority thought existed, had given rise to another imbalance. As a result of the decision, one political party was broadcasting facts about the EU while another political party was not being given the same broadcasting facilities.

Mr Justice Valenzia declared that the court was not going to enter into the issue of how facts were being presented by MIC or by the MLP.

However, the court was of the opinion that the remedy granted to the MLP had created a situation whereby one political party was broadcasting a message to the public not to join the EU while another political party was not being given the opportunity to broadcast its message in favour of EU membership.

According to the Constitution, broadcasting time and facilities had to be shared by the political parties but the PN was not being given any facility to broadcast its message.

The court concluded by finding that the decision taken by the Authority on October 1 had created an imbalance in broadcasting and discriminated against the PN.

The Authority was ordered to issue all directives as were necessary to maintain balance in broadcasting and to give the PN the same rights as those granted to the MLP.

The PN was represented by Dr Joseph Zammit Maempel and Dr J. Azzopardi.

Prof. Ian Refalo was counsel to the Broadcasting Authority.