Francis Zammit Dimech raises MaltaToday journalist’s arrest in parliament

Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech raised the arrest of MaltaToday journalist Matthew Vella in the House of Representatives, where he stated that an attempt to make the journalist reveal his sources over a report on money laundering, was unacceptable.

Vella, editor of maltatoday.com.mt, was escorted to the police headquarters in Floriana on Friday, 29 June, and placed under arrest for breaching Article 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, after reporting an attachment order.

An attachment order is issued by the courts of law to give investigating police officers access to the property and monies held by persons under investigation. MaltaToday published the attachment order in relation to an EU national living in Malta.

In a statement to the police’s economic crimes unit, Vella said that he was unaware that the court’s decision was an attachment order or that it was banned from being published.

The police also asked Vella who had handed him the attachment order, which had been delivered anonymously to the journalist.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that a journalist is asked who his sources are. The police must have clear instructions. There is a good deal of case law that gives protection to journalists on the protection of their sources, because this is partly how we put into practice Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression,” Zammit Dimech said.

In a reply, parliamentary secretary for justice Owen Bonnici pointed out that the arrest had taken place over a breach of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, which prohibits the disclosure of attachment order. “When it was realised that this disclosure had been a bona fide shortcoming, the matter stopped there. These are serious matters which when exposed, could affect ongoing police investigations.”

In a statement, the Institute of Maltese Journalists (IĠM) also drew attention to article 46 of the Press Act Cap. 248, which states: “No court shall require any person mentioned in article 23 (the author of a media report, the editor or publisher) to disclose, nor shall such person be guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a newspaper or broadcast for which he is responsible unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that such disclosure is necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, or for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the interests of justice:

“Provided that the court shall not order such disclosure unless it is also satisfied that in the particular circumstances of the case the need for investigation by the court outweighs the need of the media to protect its sources, due regard being taken of the importance of the role of the media in a democratic society...”

The IĠM pointed out that the principle of confidentiality of the source is a basic tenet of democracy for which it fought from the early days of its foundation in 1989. “Putting pressure on a journalist to reveal a source must be weighed against highly serious repercussions and should not be meted out in a heavy-handed manner,” Malcolm Naudi, chairman IGM, said.