It is incredible – if not an outright attack on the freedom of the press – that the police should expect a journalist to divulge his confidential source in a case that has been before the Public Accounts Committee and the court for months on end. We are, of course, referring to the Enemalta oil procurement scandal.

On Thursday, a senior police officer prosecuting in the case against former Enemalta chairman Tancred Tabone, asked the managing editor of Malta Today to reveal the source of information he had received on the matter.

In one of its few provisions that actually seeks to guard press freedoms rather than erode them, the Press Act states: “No court shall require any person... to disclose, nor shall such person be guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a newspaper or broadcast for which he is responsible unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that such disclosure is necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety or for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the interests of justice:

“Provided that the court shall not order such disclosure unless it is also satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the need for investigation by the court outweighs the need of the media to protect its sources, due regard being taken of the importance of the role of the media in a democratic society.”

It would be very difficult for the police to convince society, which the press serves, and, more importantly, the magistrate hearing the case that knowing the name of the source can be justified. In this case, the ‘crime’ in question has been well exposed.

And, bearing in mind the details that have already emerged about the scandal and which continue to surface, it would be hard to understand how “in the particular circumstances of the case, the need for investigation by the court outweighs the need of the media to protect its sources, due regard being taken of the importance of the role of the media in a democratic society”.

The police may be excused if they did not refer to the code of journalistic ethics, which states that “the following cases shall be considered to be in breach of ethical behaviour: a. whenever the confidentiality of the source of information, as requested, is not respected” before making their request in court. But not having due respect for the spirit of the Press Act is unpardonable.

The presiding magistrate wisely opted to review the Press Act and other relevant laws before making a ruling. She will surely also refer to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

A fact sheet on the ECHR website lists judgments dealing with the protection of journalistic sources within the framework of article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

An excerpt from the European Court decision in Goodwin v the United Kingdom (delivered on March 27, 1996) should suffice: “Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom… Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result, the vital public watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information be adversely affected.”

The police should formally and publicly withdraw their request with immediate effect.