Former General Workers' Union boss Tony Zarb lost four libel suits he had filed against the Nationalist Party over allegations that comments made at a private meeting bore a strong whiff of corruption and abuse.

Tony Zarb

The cases dated back to a month before the 2013 general election when various exponents of the Nationalist Party had commented upon two You Tube audio recordings allegedly revealing snippets of a conversation conducted during a private meal between Mr Zarb, Gaetano Mercieca, Dominic Gafa and Michael Ferry.

It was reported at the time that the gist of that surreptitiously recorded conversation had appeared to indicate that the GWU "would give a push to companies friendly with the union when it came to government tenders".

When the recordings were uploaded on You Tube the PN had published a statement on the Maltarightnow.com portal alleging that Mr Zarb's comments bore "a strong whiff of corruption and abuse".

Then PN general secretary Paul Borg Olivier had expressed the party’s position in a news conference aired on Net Television, while Mr Clyde Puli had spoken about the allegations on TVHEMM aired on the state channel.

Likewise, Simon Busuttil had referred to the alleged corruption in the course of a public speech delivered in the heat of the electoral campaign.

These public declarations had prompted Mr Zarb to file for defamation in respect of former PN leader Lawrence Gonzi, Dr Busuttil, Dr Borg Olivier, Mr Clyde Puli, together with Media Link Communications Ltd.

An expert appointed by Mr Zarb to verify the authenticity of the You Tube clips had concluded there were "signs of malicious editing/tampering on this recording" which could therefore not "be relied upon as a true account of the conversation".

However, the expert report was never confirmed under oath and the expert was never brought forward to testify in the proceedings, the court observed.

Save for the expert report, the applicant had produced no other evidence, not even the allegedly defamatory statements reported on the media, the court added.

As for the public comments by Dr Busuttil, magistrate Francesco Depasquale observed that not only had these comments been made in the heat of an electoral campaign, but they had been directed against a man who was a public figure and thus subject to a higher level of criticism than any ordinary citizen.

Dr Busuttil, as a political figure, “had a duty to comment upon the behaviour of public and political individuals” the court concluded, pointing out that he had been voicing his opinion “based on facts as resulting at the time.”

The court dismissed all four suits with costs against Mr Zarb, declaring, in the case of Dr Busuttil, that the public comments made had not been intended to tarnish the reputation of the applicant but had been an exercise of the right of freedom of expression and a politician’s duty to comment on matters of public interest.