The Journalists' Committee said yesterday the PBS editorial board was right to stop an edition of BondìPlus from being aired on grounds of conflict of interest, although the station should have assigned its newsroom or other journalists to address the issue the programme planned to look into.

The committee said it had received a complaint from Where's Everybody director and BondìPlus presenter Lou Bondì after he was not allowed to air a programme on former minister John Dalli. Mr Dalli is insisting that he had been forced to resign as Foreign Minister because of a report in the Prime Minister's possession and which he was not aware of. The report, drawn up by private investigator Joe Zahra, has now been declared by a magistrate to be fake and Mr Zahra was sentenced to two years in prison. He will be appealing the judgment.

The reasons given by the editorial board chairman for stopping the programme were that Mr Zahra's case is sub judice and that Where's Everybody has a conflict of interest given its association with Mr Zahra.

The Journalists' Committee said it absolutely disagrees that a case being heard in court should not be debated and covered journalistically. Journalists have for long been shackled by this misconception that works against the public's right to know.

The committee said that by the editorial board's argument, Italy would not have debated the Moggi (football) scandal, to cite one example, just because it ended up in court.

"Even the fact that Mr Dalli declined to participate in the programme should have had no bearing on the decision to stop the edition," it said.

On the other hand, the committee said it understands the public broadcaster's need to safeguard its integrity in avoiding any conflicts of interest - real or perceived - in any of its programmes.

"In this case, it is clear that Mr Zahra's association with Where's Everybody and his central involvement in the John Dalli case raises concerns of conflict of interest. Mr Bondì's claim that, should Mr Dalli have participated and the programme been broadcast, the latter would have had the chance to confront him on allegations of conflict of interest, proves, if anything, the nature of the presenter's own involvement in the issue," it said.

"Hence PBS was right in stopping the programme for reasons of conflict of interest, although it should have assigned the issue to its own newsroom or other journalists, given that it remains a matter of public interest."

In reaction to the statement by the Journalists' Committee Mr Bondì said he would like to show his "appreciation to the Committee for its stand that neither the sub judice clause nor John Dalli's refusal to participate in the programme should have prevented the programme from being aired".

He also said he appreciated the Committee's position that the Dalli case is in the public interest and therefore merits a programme on the national station.

However, Mr Bondì said the remaining point made by the Committee was confusing: "The Committee speaks of 'real or perceived' conflicts of interest as if the two are the same or have the same consequences and finds me guilty of either. Obviously, someone who has a real conflict of interest is guilty of doing something wrong or about to. Someone who is only perceived to have one has done nothing wrong.

"After the Committee's press release was released, I spoke to Karl Schembri, the Journalists' Committee president, to clarify this confusion. I asked him whether the Committee was saying that I had a real or a perceived conflict of interest. Despite my insistence he failed to give me an answer," Mr Bondì said.

He added: "If perceptions of a conflict of interest were used lightly to disqualify journalists from exercising their profession, every journalist in the country would be out of a job, including all the members of the Journalists' Committee. How, for instance, can the Journalists' Committee take such a stand on this case at the same time that it accepts members who work for politically owned stations and therefore have both a real as well as a perceived conflict of interest," he asked.

Mr Bondì said that Mr Schembri told him that he took his word on the following two points:

• Mr Bondì did not know about the Zahra report when Mr Dalli was on the programme in January 2004 and June 2004, that is until after the latter resigned.

• Mr Zahra was never involved in the production of any BondìPlus edition on Mr Dalli.