In article 19, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays down that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights also provides for the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”.

Here, too, the right to freedom of expression includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas but allows restrictions for a number of reasons. The above is also reflected in the provisions of article 41 of the Constitution of Malta.

But, then, article 114 (1) of the General Elections Act lays down that, on election day and the day before, “no person shall address any public meeting or any other gathering whatsoever in any place or building accessible to the public, or on the broadcasting media, on any matter intended or likely to influence voters in the exercise of the franchise, or publish or cause to be published any newspaper, printed matter or other means of communication to the public containing any matter aforesaid, or issue or cause to be issued any statement or declaration on any matter aforesaid or knowingly distribute any newspaper, printed matter, or other means of communication, or any statement or declaration as aforesaid”.

Defaulters would be liable to a fine not exceeding €1,164.69 or to imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.

This means that today and tomorrow the media cannot report anything that may influence voters even if the country’s supreme law – the Constitution – gives you the right to receive the information you would like to have.

So, the first question that comes to mind is whether this particular General Elections Act provision is constitutional and whether it is in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.

None of the conditions listed in the European Convention or the Constitution restricting one’s right to receive information seem to apply here.

There is then the aspect of interpretation. What would “influence voters in the exercise of the franchise”? In this day and age when people are bombarded with all sorts of information from every imaginable quarter, is a voter so easily influenced as one would have been when the law was drafted in 1991?

At the time, the legislator must have had radio, television and the print media primarily in mind although, to be fair, the law does speak also of “other means of communication”.

Thus, although enforcing the law was then straightforward, the advent of the internet makes such a task practically impossible, especially when it is not clear who would have posted anything deemed to violate the law.

Although it should not boil down to a question of sour grapes, a law that so manifestly can lead to discrimination is plainly unjust.

The above leads to one clear conclusion: article 114 of the General Elections Act must be reformed with immediate effect (this should have already happened). As is also the case with the provision on the money election candidates can spend during their campaigns.

Worse than not having a law at all is allowing it to be openly flouted, as is the case with expenses and what the internet can do on the so-called reflection day.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.