Speaker Anġlu Farrugia ought to withdraw the ruling he gave on Monday ordering the editor of l-Orizzont to carry “a clarification and a correction” within two days. Also, the ruling should be struck off the official records of the House as if it never happened. If it remains, it will be a serious blot on the democratic credentials of this country.
The incident was sparked off by a parliamentary question tabled by Nationalist MP Ċensu Galea, which led to the Maltese daily running an item about abandoned boats and vehicles in St Paul’s Bay. The newspaper referred to Justice, Local Government and Culture Minister Owen Bonnici and St Paul’s Bay mayor Raymond Tabone but did not name Mr Galea.
Mr Galea took exception to this and raised the matter in the sitting of October 29. Subsequently, the Speaker, through the Clerk of the House, asked l-Orizzont to carry a clarification and, in reaction, the editor asked which laws or Standing Orders bound the press to carry the names of MPs tabling questions in Parliament.
Of course, no such provisions exist. If the Speaker wanted to give a ruling about the matter he should have said so and, perhaps, add a word or two of wise advice to both MPs – for the way they sometimes react or overact – and the press to make sure they give readers the ‘full’ story.
But he should not have ordered the media to name MPs whenever they table questions or speak in the House and at parliamentary committees; nor have ordered l-Orizzont to publish a clarification and correction.
The reasons why the ruling cannot stand are found in what Dr Farrugia himself said in his decision.
After noting that the Standing Rules of the House are silent about the subject matter, he refers to a provision in the House of Representatives (Privileges and Powers) Ordinance which speaks about “the wilful or reckless publication of any false or perverted report of any debate or proceedings of the House or a Committee thereof”.
Though the spirit of the law is crystal clear, Dr Farrugia concluded that failing to name an MP who tables a question when reporting on the matter “can somehow be interpreted [as meaning] that such articles... can be considered to be incorrect or incomplete reporting and, thus, such a report can be interpreted as perverted reporting”.
Dr Farrugia then referred to the code of journalistic ethics issued by the Malta Institute of Journalists. Though he notes that the clauses he himself quotes were not breached, he concluded that it is ethically incorrect that a journalist reporting on a parliamentary question should “arbitrarily” decide not to quote the maker.
The Speaker also quoted from the Commonwealth Law Reviews, which say that “members of Parliament and other elected representatives of the people can only do their job if they are free to debate issues openly. The country cannot be properly governed by people who are muzzled”.
Dr Farrugia took that to mean that the provision clearly indicates that names should be used for the sake of responsibility, transparency and accountability.
He also quoted Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates which state that “the Speaker must call on a member by name...”, that reporting “...leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument” and that “Hansard adds, in parentheses, the name of the member being referred to...”
With all due respect, we believe the Speaker drew the wrong conclusions.