MLP ordered to pay Lm1,900 libel damages

The Malta Labour Party, represented by Emanuel Cuschieri and Jimmy Magro, was yesterday ordered by Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia in the Civil Court to pay almost Lm2,000 libel damages.

The judgments were delivered in two libel suits filed against the MLP by Louis Galea and Ninu Zammit.

The government ministers filed their writs in 2001 following the publication of a notice published in l-orizzont on April 19, 2001 under the heading "Il-hbieb tal-hbieb".

The ministers claimed the notice, produced and paid for by the MLP, was libellous and damaging to their reputations, and they requested the court to order the Malta Labour Party to pay them libel damages.

Dr Galea submitted that the notice was libellous for it contained a photograph of him that gave the impression he was in some manner connected with drug traffickers or with drug trafficking.

Dr Galea denied that he had any connection with either Ciro Del Negro or another man - X - whose name cannot be mentioned following a ban issued by the Criminal Court.

His brother, Joe Galea, had voluntarily testified in the compilation proceedings against X, and had taken action to clear his name.

Joe Galea had testified to the effect that he had no connection with X or with Del Negro and that he had never been involved in drug trafficking.

The same submissions were also made by Zammit in his writ, and he, too, categorically denied any connection with X or Del Negro.

The Malta Labour Party submitted that the notice was based on the contents of Del Negro's diary, which had never been denied by anyone.

The notice stated that Dr Galea was the brother of the Joe Galea mentioned in the diary.

The diary contained, with Joe Galea's name, a network of people's names, all of whom were known in criminal circles.

This was why the notice was entitled "Il-hbieb tal-hbieb".

No accusations against Dr Galea were contained in the notice.

No submissions were made by the MLP in Zammit's suit.

In yesterday's judgments Mr Justice Valenzia said that criticism was fundamental in a democratic society but it had to be made within limits.

In cases such as these which were of public interest and which involved public persons, the limits had to be as wide as possible, but still to exist.

Every person, public or otherwise, was entitled to protection of his reputation, and unfounded insinuations were never acceptable.

Referring to Dr Galea's case the court pointed out that no evidence had been forthcoming that Joe Galea had some connection with the persons mentioned by Del Negro in his diary.

It therefore followed that the MLP was not justified in placing a photograph of Dr Galea in the notice.

In Zammit's case no evidence had been produced to show that the person mentioned in Del Negro's diary was indeed plaintiff.

The placing of Zammit's photograph in the notice was malicious and aimed at damaging his reputation.

The court therefore upheld both libel suits and ordered the MLP to pay Lm1,000 libel damages to Zammit and Lm900 to Dr Galea.