Justice minister Jonathan Attard and the members of a media security committee that is operating without regulatory oversight refused to respond to this website’s questions about the committee.
In January, the justice minister spoke in Parliament about Bill No. 17, a draft law first debated in Parliament almost three years ago. It’s been gathering dust on the Parliamentary agenda – along with a couple other media related bills – since.
Bill No. 17 proposed the creation of a committee that would recommend measures for the protection of “journalists, other media actors and persons in public life” and, in the justice minister’s own words a few months ago, “also intervene and take measures whenever necessary.”
The members of this media security committee include permanent secretary for home affairs Joyce Cassar, AFM commander Clinton O’ Neill, police commissioner Angelo Gafa’, and the head of Malta’s Secret Service.
While boasting about the government’s commitment to another flawed piece of legislation dressed up as a reform, the justice minister said:
“This committee…will be formalised here, it’s important to say, because in reality this committee’s function is already being carried out. But yes, we saw the need for this committee’s function to be formalised at law.”
In other words, the justice minister let it slip that the committee is operational without any legislation that ensures the committee’s work is accountable.
In our efforts to shed further light on this secretive committee’s operations, we sent questions to every party involved: the justice minister, the home affairs ministry’s permanent secretary, the police commissioner, the commander of Malta’s armed forces, and a spokesperson from the office of the prime minister.
Specifically, we asked the justice minister to explain why, in spite of his boastful declaration in Parliament back in January, Bill No. 17 remains in limbo while the committee runs without oversight.
We also asked questions about the work that is apparently being carried out by this committee, how frequently the committee meets, and whether they are bound by any terms of reference.
Additional questions about whether committee members are being paid over and above their public salaries were sent.
These questions were sent directly to the justice minister and his spokesperson. Neither acknowledged our queries.
The same questions were sent to the committee’s members. None of them acknowledged our queries, either, effectively enforcing an absolute wall of silence about the subject.
The justice minister’s casual admission about the status of the committee slipped by largely unnoticed until this point.
The blanket refusal to respond to our questions raises further red flags about the subject, especially when considering the government’s disastrous track record when it comes to press reform.
The publication of a white paper about media reform laws, promised more than two years ago by prime minister Robert Abela, remains nowhere to be seen.
When further considered within the context of the government’s destructive approach towards independent media who strive to hold it accountable, the justice minister’s casual slip-up becomes more sinister.
Who is this media security committee really protecting?
Does it nominally mention journalists in its mission statement while actually serving as a below-the-radar unit for the protection of certain “public persons”?
Why is the committee composed of four powerful executive officials with wide-ranging surveillance capabilities at their disposal and not an independent panel of experts with specialist knowledge about the security needs of journalists?
Does anyone seriously think that journalists in a mafia state would ever trust a committee made up of a corrupt police commissioner, an incompetent brigadier, a civil servant beholden to whoever is in charge of home affairs, and the head of the secret service?
From where we’re standing, this seems a whole lot more like a surveillance committee dressed up as a paper tiger for the “protection” of journalists.
Perhaps the justice minister could start “protecting” this website’s patience by answering our questions.
The EU should during plenary session as the government’s representative to explain the situation.