Former minister loses ‘nepotism’ libel suit against Joseph Muscat

A court of law has thrown out a libel suit filed by then education minister Dolores Cristina in 2012 against Joseph Muscat, in which the then Opposition leader claimed that her son-in-law had been irregularly appointed to the position of a consultant at Mater Dei Hospital.

In his decision, Magistrate Francesco Depasquale found that Muscat’s statement had respected the requisites of fair comment, while declaring that politicians had to open themselves to closer scrutiny by both journalists and the public at large, “and consequently display a greater degree of tolerance.”

In his testimony, Muscat said his comment was addressed at the fact that Cristina had not released any comment when asked by the press in 2012, as to her son-in-law’s appointment and the subsequent decision by the Public Service Commission – and it is this silence that he indeed described as “shocking”.

“I never implied any illicit action on her part or nepotism from her personally, but I used the word ‘nepotism’ with respect to the entire process of selection, which was later revoked.”

In court, Cristina had categorically denied being involved in any way in the awarding of the post to her daughter's husband. She had refused to comment about the case.

Cristina’s son-in-law Dr Robert Cuschieri was an applicant in 2010 for the position of a designate consultant surgeon, leading to the post of consultant surgeon, in Hepato Pacreato Biliary Surgery.

The Public Service Commission had issued a call and then appointed a selection board to examine the applications, which board included as chairman Prof. Godfrey Laferla as head of department, external professor David Galaway, and two other members, Kevin Cassar and Andrew Xuereb, the director of human resources at Mater Dei.

Cuschieri was chosen by the selection board in January 2011, but the Medical Association of Malta (MAM) soon after asked the PSC to investigate his eligibility because he did not have two years’ full-time experience as a specialists in general surgery as required in the job conditions.

The three other applicants for the job appealed the decision, and the PSC examined the case, and in June 2011 declared that Cuschieri was ineligible for the post.

But Laferla himself complained that he had not been given sufficient guidelines as to how to interpret the eligibility of conditions, which is why the entire board proceeded to revoke its own approval of the candidate.

Cuschieri proceeded to institute court proceedings in December 2011 to stop a new selection process, which was acceded to in November 2013, and since then has been under appeal.

The court agreed that there was “no doubt that Cuschieri’s selection was a matter of public interest. [Muscat] was commenting on the ‘system of nepotism that had annoyed people of good will’ by not alleging that Cuschieri was selected by sheer nepotism, and instead complaining that ‘meritocracy was no longer part of the government’s dictionary.”