Former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi was awarded moral damages by a court today after editorial comments published by the General Workers' Union seven years ago were deemed defamatory.

Josef Caruana as editor of l-Orizzont had carried an editorial entitled 'Giddieb bil-Provi' (A Proven Liar) published on November 15, 2010 with reference to the then Prime Minister.

The comments were made amid a raging political controversy regarding Enemalta's contract with Danish company BWSC for the extension of the Delimara power station.

The editor referred to a statement made by Dr Gonzi in the course of an interview aired on TVM's Bondi+ on October 18, 2010.

The Prime Minister had declared that he had instructed the government members on the Public Accounts Committee to vote in favour of a continued debate on the Auditor General's report concerning the BWSC deal.

Shortly after the programme, the four government members had actually voted against the summoning of other witnesses before the PAC, prompting l-orizzont to label the Prime Minister a liar.

A magistrate's court had rejected Dr Gonzi's claims that the editorial comments had been defamatory in his regard, which led the plaintiff to file an appeal.

The court of appeal, presided by Mr Justice Anthony Ellul, observed that the defendant's comments had been intended to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff who at the time was Prime Minister.

The defendant had argued that at the time when the allegedly defamatory remarks went to print, even the then Opposition leader had labelled the Prime Minister as a liar. However, rather than report Joseph Muscat's comments, the editor had declared over and over that Dr Gonzi was a liar, the court remarked.

"The defendant was not acting in good faith since he discarded the truth which could easily have been verified," the court declared.

The plaintiff's instructions as declared on Bondi+ had been to vote in favour of the debate and no reference was made to summoning witnesses before the PAC.

The defendant's argument that the editorial comments amounted to a value judgment was rejected by the court which concluded that "even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, there must exist a sufficient factual basis to support it failing which it will be excessive".

The court therefore revoked the judgment of the magistrate's court, declared the editorial comments to be defamatory and ordered the editor of l-Orizzont to pay €600 by way of moral damages.

Court expenses were also to be borne by the defendant.