For over a year now, minister Konrad Mizzi and chief of staff Keith Schembri have faced serious allegations. 

The details that trickled out over the months were first met by denials and, subsequently, attempts to explain/justify what happened. Then, something upset the applecart. Blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia alleged that Michelle Muscat, the Prime Minister's wife, was the ultimate beneficiary owner of ‘mysterious’ third secret Panama company Egrant.

Opposition leader Simon Busuttil then submitted documents to two magistrates to sustain his claims that Mr Schembri had received ‘kickbacks’ from the sale of Maltese passports to three Russian nationals. At this point, the involvement of the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit emerged. It resulted that the FIAU had been looking into certain dealings that could be ‘shady’.

The media became curious and inquisitive journalists put their ears to the ground and kept their eyes wide open. The result of their toils caused a certain degree of annoyance in some quarters.

Pilatus Bank, which features in FIAU reports, filed a criminal complaint with the police about “the leak of confidential documents and information from documents of the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) about the bank”.

In sharp contrast to their past inertia, the police lost no time in asking a magistrate to take up the matter

In sharp contrast to their past inertia, the police lost no time in asking a magistrate to take up the matter. Within days, journalists were summoned to testify and one of the questions the magistrate put was to name their sources.

Journalists’ sources are protected by law, unless disclosure is necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the interests of justice. However, even in making such exceptions, the law lays down 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”.

This legal proviso is backed up by case law. Suffice to mention what the European Court of Human Rights had to say in the famous Godwin v. the United Kingdom case (March 1996):

“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 may be adversely affected.

“Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with… the [the European Convention of Human Rights] unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest.”

Surely, the public interest here is best served by establishing whether compliance obligations were met and/or any crime was committed – including, possibly, money laundering – and, if so, who were the perpetrators.

When the shadows start talking only the sun can stop it because sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.