Jason Azzopardi Fights Back And Opens Constitutional Case Over Libel Ruling

Jason Azzopardi has filed a constitutional case to challenge a libel judgment he previously lost against PL MP Carmelo Abela.

Azzopardi was last year found guilty of libel when he linked Abela to the 2010 botched HSBC bank heist and was ordered to pay €7,000 in damages. Abela used to work at the bank at the time of the attempted robbery.

This sentence was confirmed on appeal last June.   

However, Azzopardi now warned that the courts ignored important facts, such as how criminals accused of complicity in the failed heist had named Abela as an accomplice themselves under oath.

During a court case on the hold-up of a cash van, one of these criminals – a Degiorgio brother – told Abela to his face that “he would expose him on the other theft in Santa Venera”.

Azzopardi pointed out that Abela only sued him for libel, and not the criminals themselves.

He also noted that the police had established that the perpetrators of the heist had internal accomplices within the bank who showed them how to quickly access a vault and who provided them with electronic key cards to unlock security cards. Access to the machine that produced these keys was limited to a very small number of HSBC employees.

He added that while Abela still appears in HSBC’s employee records, he never returned to work at the bank even after leaving his role as a government minister in 2022.

Azzopardi warned that the courts’ decision to find him guilty of libel was tantamount to punishing this right to political expression, “creating a chilling effect on political speech regarding public interest matters and ongoing public discussion”.

“While the applicant understands that even political speech does not enjoy absolute protection under the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 41 of the Constitution of Malta and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated in Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta), such a right may only be restricted where the limitation is necessary in a democratic society and where there is a ‘pressing social need’,” he said.

“Given that this right is one of the pillars of a democratic society, political expression is afforded a high level of protection, with the European Court repeatedly affirming that there is little to no scope under Article 10(2) for restrictions on political speech or debate on matters of public interest.”