Make no mistake about it. Resorting for the first time ever to file precautionary warrants on the bank assets of a journalist, when there isn’t even a judgment about the merits of the case, is an affront to democracy and freedom of expression.

The precautionary warrants were filed by Chris Cardona who, apart from being Minister for the Economy is also the deputy leader of the Labour Party, and by his collaborator, Joseph Gerada following the publication, on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s blog, of reports that both men visited a brothel in Velbert, Germany while on official business.

The warrants meant that the sum of €47,460 in the bank accounts of the journalist have been frozen until the libel suits are decided upon by our courts, whenever that may be.

To make use of such an excessive measure against a journalist being sued for libel is abhorrent and constitutes a very serious threat to democracy and to fundamental human rights in our country.

It is very poor consolation that, upon noticing the public outcry generated by his action, the minister ‘assured’ us he will not resort to such a measure if he sues for libel other journalists. That statement adds insult to injury for the simple reason that it is not up to him to decide who qualifies to be regarded as a journalist and who doesn’t.

Only in a dictatorship would a member of government even dream of assuming such a power.

Moreover, I would be surprised if the minister has not been informed by his own lawyer that the matter has already been decided upon in a decree of our Court of Magistrates on March 17, 2016 in the case Lindsey Gambin vs Daphne Caruana Galizia, where the court ruled that there should be no doubt about Caruana Galizia’s journalistic credentials.

Quoting then from the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the Protection of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly and Association with regard to Privately-Operated Internet Platforms and Online Serce Providers – adopted on December 7, 2011 - the court stressed that internet platforms such as that used by this journalist “although privately operated... are a significant part of the public sphere through facilitating debate on issues of public interst; in some cases, they can fulfil, similar to tradional media, the role of a social ‘watchdog’ and have demonstrated their usefulness in bringing psitive real-life change”.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled, over and over again, that “freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and the safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular importance” (Tillack v Belgium, November 27, 2007; Financial Times Ltd and Others v The United Kingdom, December 15, 2009).

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society

These principles have led that court and, now, our own courts to protect journalists against having to divulge their sources.

Ultimately, while freedom of expression is about allowing journalists to carry out their profession without fear or intimidation from powerful axe-wielding ministers or the like, it is, even more importantly, about ensuring that in a democratic European society the public will have access to information about any matter of interst to the people without any measure that would have a ‘chilling effect’ on the provision of that information or of different points of view that lead to debate and exchange of views.

The people overwhelmingly responded to the threat against democracy and freedom of expression by contributing towards a crowd-funding initiative immedaitely set up by Nationalist candidate David Thake. Within hours, the people collected enough money to be deposited in court and free up the bank accounts of the journalist. A surplus will go to Dar Merħba Bik.

That immediate response brings to mind the historic episode of when the people of Malta, in the 15th century, in order to win back their freedom from a despotic Monroy, sold their jewellery to pay the ransom of 30,000 Aragonese Florins. That was done against a tyrannical foreign ruler. It appears that now the Maltese are having to buy back their freedom from their own government that, apart from being the most corrupt ever in the history of our country, has no qualms in trying to crush any opposition against it.

Corruption, the persistent use of blatant lies and abuse of power lead to further erosion of democracy and our fundamental human rights. It is only in that context that one can try to interpret the tactics being employed by the Labour government to try to suppress freedom of expression. In typical ‘post-truth’ style, we are supposed to interpret that these tactics are Labour’s way of extening their ‘hand of friendship’ towards us.

The PN yesterday held a protest event themed Niddefendu d-demokrazija u l-libertà (In defence of democracy and freedom). The response of the people was overwhelming. We are standing up to be counted in our defence of freedom of expression.

Following that event, the Opposition will today be presenting a Bill in Parliament for the removal of precautionary warrants against journalists. I shall not place any bets on how the government will respond to that initiative. In the meantime, it is our duty to, again, be  present this coming Sunday in a national protest agsinst corruption and in defence of democracy and liberty in our country.

As a nation and as a people, we deserve far better and we owe our stand to our own country for which we genuinely care above any other consideration.

We shall drive home the message that we shall not be initimidated in one way or other. The national call we are responding to unites us in a coalition that brings together all those who really love Malta and our nation’s reputation.

Francis Zammit Dimech is a lawyer and a Nationalist MP.