Movement says it has right to air its views too

The Broadcasting Authority had given the Malta Labour Party free air time on the national television station because the Malta-EU Information Centre's information spots were financed out of public funds, Authority chairman Joseph Said Pullicino said yesterday.

Testifying before Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo, Chief Justice Emeritus Said Pullicino said the Authority was duty bound to follow the Constitution which laid down that there had to be a balance between political parties.

Moviment IVA Malta fl-Ewropa had filed a writ of summons against the Authority asking the Civil Court to declare that the Authority's decision granting the MLP airtime had created an imbalance in broadcasting and was discriminatory towards the movement.

Chief Justice Emeritus Said Pullicino said that in this case the Authority felt there were two sides involved, the pro-EU movement and the anti-EU movement, and in trying to strike a balance between the two it used its discretion when allocating airtime to those wanted to express their view about the matter.

When PBS decided to accept the paid adverts by MIC, the MLP complained that an imbalance had been created and the Authority decided that the MLP should be given free airtime because the MIC spots were paid out of public funds, he said.

Pressed by the defence, he said the Authority had the discretion to allocate airtime too and did not have set criteria as such but used "common sense" in deciding on such matters.

Asked why the IVA movement acted only after the MLP was given the airtime, movement chairman Joanna Drake said the imbalance was created when the Authority decided the MLP could reply to the information spots MIC was producing.

As things stand, MIC was giving out information while the MLP was airing its views and there was nothing which was contradicting the MLP spots, Dr Drake said.

Dr Drake said MIC's spots were informative and no party should have the right to reply to them as the spots were not political.

If political parties had a right to have airtime on such an issue, a referendum movement too had a right to propagate its views, Dr Drake said.

The fact that the IVA movement was often invited by the Authority to participate in discussions showed that the movement was a recognised body. The movement did not own any media but depended on invitations to be able to air its views, Dr Drake said.

She said the IVA movement was formed two years ago as a referendum movement. It was a political movement whose opinions differed from those of political parties and hence it wanted a right to express its views.

Dr Drake said she considered MIC not to be a political movement.

Called to the witness stand, Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami said the government was committed to hold a referendum and had set up MIC specifically so that objective information would be given on EU membership and the negotiation process.

MIC did not have a mandate to tell the people to vote for or against EU membership.

The prime minister said the government considered the EU issue as a national issue not a political one and everyone had the right to voice an opinion about the matter.

Asked about how the referendum question would be and whether it would contain any reference to the partnership option, Dr Fenech Adami said the question would be a choice between membership according to what has been negotiated or staying out of the EU. There would be no reference to partnership or any other matter, Dr Fenech Adami said.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo put off the case for December 3 for judgment.

Dr Austin Bencini appeared for the IVA movement.

Prof. Ian Refalo appeared for the Broadcasting Authority.