Deborah Schembri (‘Private lives and public interest’, February 11) asks: “Should the private life of politicians, and by private here I mean sexual, be made public?” She asks this question in the light of the alleged visit by a government minister, while on official business, to a brothel in Germany. She further distinguishes between “what is in the public interest and what the public is merely interested in” and, out of synch with media law, comes up with her own definition of the ‘public interest’: “the general welfare of the public, plain and simple”.

Media law affords a better-crafted definition than the above: “Public interest is not to be confined within narrow limits. Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on, or what may happen to them or others, then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment.”

This definition is lifted from paragraph 2.1 of Subsidiary Legislation 350.14, entitled ‘Requirements as to Standards and Practice Applicable to News Bulletins and Current Affairs Programmes’ made by the Broadcasting Authority following due consultation with stakeholders in terms of the Broadcasting Act. It is not only an authoritative definition of ‘public interest’ in the realm of media law (as opposed to other branches of Maltese law), but is also the one which all broadcasters are mandated to comply with.

If a minister was caught abroad seeking sexual favours in a brothel, would that not run counter toMalta’s public policy outlawing brothels?

The subsidiary law further provides that any “act that relies upon a defence of public interest must be proportional to the actual interest served. Examples of how the public interest may be served by the media include: detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour, protecting public health and safety, preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation and exposing significant incompetence in public office”.

Furthermore, the subsidiary law allows journalists to get involved in investigative journalism “such as [that] involving investigation of allegedly criminal or otherwise disreputable behaviour”.

Without entering into the veracity or falseness of Chris Cardona’s alleged visit to a brothel when on government business – as this matter is reserved for a court of justice to determine following due process of law – it is clear that by applying the definition of the subsidiary law quoted, there is a public interest served, intended to investigate whether there was a case of ministerial disreputable behaviour as understood by the subsidiary law. That is, the matter is not simply one of gossip or intrusion in the minister’s private life but one of a public interest.

What makes it a matter of public interest? First, the subsidiary law, when defining acting in a public capacity “includes persons holding public offices, public figures and other persons who although not public officers are in the public limelight”. There is no doubt that a minister of government acts in a public capacity.

Second, when the minister allegedly visited the brothel, he was not in Germany on a private visit but in an official representative capacity of the government of Malta. Hence if he were to visit the brothel while on holiday touring brothels in Germany, the public interest would be less served than when he allegedly visited the brothel while on official government business.

Third, the allegation is that the minister visited a brothel. He did not go to the theatre or to an artistic exhibition. Indeed, there is nothing to be proud of or boast about when visiting such a place. By its own nature, a brothel is a place of disrepute, a place which society does not view in a good light.

Fourth, the attendance at the brothel was not part of the official entertainment programme offered to delegates attending the meeting in question. It would been more in the nature of an own-initiative visit.

Fifth, the minister’s travel to Germany was paid out of public funds – his flights, lodging, subsistence, travelling, etc.

So if he misbehaved (as the allegation goes) or used government money not for the purpose it was intended, again this is of public interest.

One must also keep in mind that charges have already been levelled against Cardona’s delegation’s having resorted to exorbitant recourse to a minibar on a previous occasion at a cost to the government coffers, even though this expenditure might have been reimbursed.

Sixth, there is also a public policy element to this story. While the public policy of Malta is against the legalisation of brothels, if a minister was caught abroad seeking sexual favours in a brothel, would that not run counter to Malta’s public policy outlawing brothels, and should it not raise pertinent questions?

There is no doubt that there is a public interest in the allegation in question, that the media has a right to investigate this story and that in this particular case, the episode is not one related to private life but to that of a government minister who was on official government business abroad, representing the government of Malta, whose trip was paid for by the government and who allegedly entertained himself against the public policy of Malta.

What more does one need to be convinced, using the definition of ‘public interest’ as it exists on the statute book, that such a case – irrespective of whether the alleged visit did or did not materialise – is worthy of coverage by the media?

Kevin Aquilina is the dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta and author of the monograph entitled Media Law in Malta, published in the International Encyclopaedia of Law