Former PN secretary-general Francis Zammit Dimech told Times of Malta that the ruling “could be a consideration” in a constitutional case filed by Lovin Malta and former CEO Chris Peregin.

The case, which was filed in 2021 and is still ongoing, is challenging the constitutionality of a proviso in the Broadcasting Act which allows the BA to limit their regulation of political impartiality to PBS.

Zammit Dimech argued that the solution lies in reforming PBS from a national broadcaster to a public one, proposing that its shares be sold to the public, as is the case with Italy’s RAI.

Questioned by Times of Malta, the two political party-owned stations adopted pretty different stances.

A NET spokesperson said that until PBS becomes a “truly public broadcaster”, the PN-owned station will remain a “vital part of our democracy” but that it “always comply with the law”.

However, a PL spokesperson played down the implications of the judges’ statement, arguing it was just an “interpretation” of the law which wasn’t included in the “decisive part” of the judgement against the BA.

“The Labour Party remains committed to strengthening the media owned by it as it is a fundamental right in a democratic society that a political party should have the tools available to transmit its political message,” they said.

What does the judgment say?

The landmark statement was made by the Appeals Court in a judgement dismissing an appeal by the Broadcasting Authority against a previous court ruling that PBS had acted unfairly against the Nationalist Party.

Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul stated that the broadcasting impartiality obligation enshrined in the Constitution applies to all stations and broadcasting services, not just PBS.

“It shall be the function of the Broadcasting Authority to ensure that, so far as possible, in such sound and television broadcasting services as may be  provided in Malta, due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and that broadcasting facilities and time are fairly apportioned between persons belonging to different political parties.”

“The BA’s argument that constitutional impartiality is no longer applicable if all political parties own their own stations is incorrect,” the judges said. “The impartiality obligation isn’t only limited to a monopoly as the BA is claiming. Article 119(1) of the Constitution clearly shows it applies in terms of all broadcasting in Malta, public and private alike, and without limitations.”

“The First Court therefore cannot reach an alternative conclusion just because now it is possible for all political parties to have their own TV stations as the BA is insisting.”

“The impartiality obligation imposed by the Constitution is applicable till this day and applies to all stations and broadcasting services.”

In 2021, Lovin Malta and former CEO Chris Peregin filed a constitutional case challenging the constitutionality of a proviso in the Broadcasting Act which allows the regulator not to monitor political party-owned TV stations for impartiality.

This proviso allows the BA to monitor impartiality among private TV stations “by looking at the general output of current affairs programmes across all licensees as a whole”.

In practice, this has seen the BA continue to regulate TVM for political impartiality but not apply the same principles to ONE and NET.

A website, Kaxxaturi.com, has been set up to explain the details of the case and why Lovin Malta decided to open it in the first place.