Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia will not withdraw the criminal libel proceedings he filed against Paul Borg Olivier during the electoral campaign, but will no longer insist that the PN’s general secretary be jailed if found guilty.

Other professions, such as medical doctors, are held criminally liable in cases of negligence where human life is at stake

Dr Mallia had initially said he would seek Dr Borg Olivier’s imprisonment over “obscene” allegations that attempted to link him to the Enemalta oil scandal due to legal services he gave the Farrugia family of oil traders.

Asked by The Times whether he would keep pursuing the case following his appointment as minister, Dr Mallia’s spokesman pointed out that Dr Borg Olivier has refused to apologise or withdraw his “blatantly untrue” and “malicious” allegations.

“It is important that the truth be allowed to come out fully, and unless this is done by a retraction from the side of Dr Borg Olivier, then the protection of the law and the courts will continue to be sought,” a spokesman for Dr Mallia said.

“It is important to point out that, while Dr Mallia believes in the full and unfettered freedom of the press, there must also be protection for the reputation of individuals against outright lies. It is also worth reminding that Dr Borg Olivier is not an independent journalist carrying out his profession, but a high-ranking party official attempting to misuse the honoured concept of press freedom for his own ends.”

Asked whether he would continue to insist on the highest sentence, that is, a jail term of three months, Dr Mallia stressed that Dr Borg Olivier’s “wild” allegations were not based on misperception but were “a deliberate fabrication” and a “voluntary character assassination attempt”.

“The law should therefore be allowed to run its course to establish the truth or, rather, the absolute lack of it in this case. Notwithstanding this, however, Minister Mallia feels that he should not in his position as minister, express any insistence or otherwise on this matter,” the spokesman said, adding that the minister would be satisfied with a retraction and an apology for the attempt to tarnish his reputation.

Asked for his views on criminal libel, in light of discussions throughout the last legislature about whether it should be removed, Dr Mallia’s spokesman said: “While some aspects of the law are considered draconian, it is also worth considering the provisions of the law from the angle of the people being reported upon.”

“Dr Mallia will obviously be very active in the discussion on the matter, should it arise. These incidents have helped serve as an eye-opener to the implications, on innocent parties, of the irresponsible behaviour of politically blinkered individuals hiding behind the ‘human shield’ afforded to them by the concept of freedom of the press. It is such abuse that undermines the professionalism of the media.”

The spokesman described Dr Mallia as “a paladin of the independence of the press and the fundamental human right of expression as stipulated in Malta’s Constitution”.

However, he added, individuals need to enjoy protection against malicious unfounded public defamation.

“Journalism is a profession which is vital in the proper functioning of a democracy. The pen is a powerful weapon, and abuse of a position of power cannot ever be treated lightly. Other professions, such as medical doctors, are held criminally liable in cases of negligence where human life is at stake. Journalists also enjoy a hold over people’s lives and it is therefore their awareness of their responsibility, and the subsequent professional execution of their duties, that is the best protection for them and other citizens too.”

Last year, the parliamentary committee for the Consolidation of Laws had come close to agreement that criminal libel should be removed as part of a wider reform.

Committee chairman Franco Debono, who is now Commissioner of Laws and coordinator of the Constitutional Convention, and José Herrera, now Parliamentary Secretary for Culture, had agreed that the law was archaic. Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech had said that, while he agreed in principle, there should be safeguards where compensation under civil law was not possible.