The collapse of good governance has now moved from the corridors ofpower to the airwaves, as the latest decision by the Broadcasting Authority clearly indicates.

Late last month, the Broadcasting Authority found there was no political imbalance when Health and Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi appeared as the sole guest on the TVM discussion programme Dissett that discussed the Panama issue. However, it noted that replies given by the minister were politically controversial and, therefore, the Nationalist Party should have been represented.

It decided to award the PN three minutes of airtime on the following edition of the programme. It is somewhat of a contradiction finding no political imbalance but still granting a ‘right of reply’.

Then, something happened because the PN was informed that, in its reply, it could not refer to the Panama companies. In the circumstances, one could hardly disagree with PN general secretary Rosette Thake that this was no more than an attempt to silence the Opposition from speaking on what she described as the biggest political scandal witnessed in Malta.

In view of the frantic efforts being made by the government and the Labour Party to deviate attention from this issue that has cast such a bad light on both Dr Mizzi and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Keith Schembri – not to mention Joseph Muscat himself because of the way he has been mishandling the matter – one cannot discount the possibility of some strings being pulled from above.

Still, more surprises were in store. A few days later, the Broadcasting Authority has a change of heart and informs the PN it could go ahead with its three-minute right of reply.

So far, it is still unknown why the Broadcasting Authority board first decided one thing, then imposed a condition and, subsequently gave its green light. A public explanation would bein order. The PN felt such behaviour showed the amateurish way in which the Broadcasting Authority was being run and accused the Labour government of trying to weaken institutions meant to be independent.

In a ‘clarification’, the Broadcasting Authority noted there could be legal consequences in the PN’s reply and that an imbalance could also be created because the original Dissett was primarily aimed for questions to be made to the minister about the Panama case.

The institution meant to be the country’s broadcasting watchdog then came up with a classic: since it did not want to gag anyone, it decided to inform the PN that if it insisted on its original reply, it could go ahead as long as it assumed full legal responsibility and indemnified both the Broadcasting Authority and PBS from any responsibility.

Just imagine were a magistrate to declare a person not guilty but still opting to impose a ‘token’ punishment not to be seen to be encouraging crime!

The Constitution, the country’s supreme law, tasks the Broadcasting Authority with ensuring “that, so far as possible, in such sound and television broadcasting services as may be provided in Malta, due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and that broadcasting facilities and time are fairly apportioned between persons belonging to different political parties”.

The Broadcasting Authority needs to do some urgent and serious soul-searching. More importantly, its very set-up and functions need to be looked into. Such a review is long overdue and the closer the election gets the more such instances of contamination of the airwaves are likely to emerge.