Earlier this week the Employment Commission held another sitting in the case Norman Vella, a former TV presenter/producer and a current MEP hopeful, instituted against the Prime Minister. Mr Vella is saying that his removal from PBS and the popular programme he hosted, TVHemm, was an act of political discrimination.

In his defence Mr Vella claimed, among other things, that before the election, Dr Muscat had told him and Peppi Azzopardi that he would pay them back if they were unfair to the Labour Party.

The offending phrase was:

“For every blow that we feel you are striking the Labour Party, I will strike you twice, with all my strength, under the belt.”

Mr Vella is claiming that now is pay-back time and that Prime Minister Muscat used his power to oust him out of PBS.

During the last session of the Employment Commission both Mr Peppi Azzopardi, producer of Xarabank, and Mr Kurt Farrugia, Head of Government Communications testified that words to that effect were used by Dr Muscat.

I was surprised to read that Mr Farrugia tried to explain away those words saying that this is a common way of speaking between politicians and journalists. I strongly beg to differ.

I have been active in journalism for more years than I care to remember. I occupied top editorial posts with more than one medium and encountered all the key politicians on the Island. I had on air and of air disagreements with many. However no one ever used any similar threat in my regard. I don’t believe that I am the exception.

During the cross-examination, Mr Farrugia was asked whether the Labour Party ever protested with the Broadcasting Authority regarding Mr Norman Vella who was hosting TVHemm during a very politically sensitive period. Mr Farrugia said that he deemed Mr Vella to be biased against the Labour Party but he never protested with the Authority as he thinks that a journalist has the right to ask whatever he/she wants to ask.

That was a very good answer indeed.

There is, though, just one little snag. Mr Farrugia said that Dr Muscat used the harsh words he used because he was angered (or some similar emotion) that during a previous edition of Xarabank a question was thrown at him with which he felt uncomfortable. He believed that the question posited during Xarabank was made in collusion with the Nationalist Party.

The offending question was about the property that previous Labour governments had given to the Labour Party. I can understand that this was a question that Dr Muscat would have preferred not to be asked, but a fair question it was by any standard. Besides, if one thinks that a journalist has the right to ask any question what was wrong with the asking of this question? What was there in that question that merited a blow down under? The mind boggles.

During the same session of the Employment Commission it turned out that a different reason had been given to Mr Azzopardi for Dr Muscat’s anger. Mr Azzopardi testified that he had been told that Dr Muscat used the words he used as he was angry for being treated unfairly (that what he thinks, at least) during an edition of Bondi+ not because of something that happened during Xarabank.

Which is the true reason: what Mr Kurt Farrugia testified earlier this week; what Mr Peppi Azzopardi was told back then or some other reason?

Meanwhile the case continues.