Comedian’s right to freedom of expression
PILN lawyers Dr Michael Camilleri and Dr Cedric Mifsud facilitated the acquittal of comedian Daniel Xuereb in the criminal court, after River of Love pastor Gordon Manché filed a police report against Xuereb in relation to something the comedian said during one of his comedy shows.
Xuereb was charged with threatening or insulting Manché in one of his comedy sketches, as well as misusing electronic equipment to share the alleged threats via social media in March 2023.
The PILN is of the belief that these charges have a chilling effect and are a threat to the right to freedom of expression.
CASE CONCLUDED
Read more about the case here
Just two weeks after Xuereb was criminally charged, the government tabled a bill in Parliament proposing changes to the law “to provide for the enhanced protection of artistic expression and in particular to provide for the avoidance of the misuse of the criminal justice system for the suppression of such form of expression”. Freedom of Expression, the bill says, will be protected and artistic, satirical or comic expression “which does not include any credible or realistic threat to the personal liberty or security of the complainant or to his property” will not be hindered.
Yet, instead of dropping the charges against him, the prosecution decided to add a third charge.
Thankfully, the case was concluded in Xuereb’s favour on 16 May 2024, with Magistrate Kevan Azzopardi noting that the defendant does not have the means to execute the threats he was accused of.
Public Inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia’s death
On 3 December 2022, Jean Paul Sofia’s body was found under tonnes of rubble following the partial collapse of a multi-storey building during works thereon. It took at least 13 hours to find his lifeless body. He was 20 years old and an only son.
His family is being represented by a team of PILN lawyers. Dr Eve Borg Costanzi and Dr Therese Comodini Cachia supported Jean Paul Sofia’s family in the public inquiry into his death, which was concluded in February 2024 and found the state responsible for the death, while Dr Christina Bellizzi, Dr Matthew Cutajar and Dr David Zahra are supporting the family, alongside a privately engaged lawyer Dr David Bonello, in a civil case for damages against those who may have contributed to his death.
CASE PARTIALLY CONCLUDED
Read more about the case here
During many interviews with the press, Isabelle Bonnici, Jean Paul’s mother, has explained that the need for a public inquiry goes beyond justice for her son, but is about obtaining justice for all those who have suffered the same fate as Jean Paul. His family campaigned for months to obtain a public inquiry into his death, during which over 30,000 people signed Isabelle’s petition. The family’s efforts were finally rewarded when in February 2024 the inquiry board issued its report, noting the shortcomings of administration and public authorities and providing recommendations for a safer working environment in construction.
The case in the civil court is still ongoing.
Breach to the right to a fair trial
PILN Lawyer Dr Edward Mario Camilleri is supporting a third-country national, a mother of four, in a constitutional case challenging the International Protection Agency’s (IPA) rejection of her application for international protection. She claims that IPA’s decision breaches her right to a fair trial and to access to the courts, and her right to be protected from discrimination. She also claims that the fact that her children are at risk of deportation to the country in which they first applied for asylum, places them at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in terms of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
CASE ONGOING
Read more about the case here
The mother and her four children fled civil war in their country and sought asylum in an EU country where they were granted refugee status. They were no longer eligible to live in government-run centres after receiving protection status and faced homelessness and extreme poverty, with limited access to basic services including healthcare. They came to Malta and reapplied for asylum here, however within weeks, the mother’s application was deemed inadmissible by IPA on the grounds that she had already been granted international protection elsewhere in Europe. She was not given the opportunity to explain why she was reapplying for international protection and was denied the right to appeal the IPA’s decision. The family are at risk of being deported back to their first country of asylum despite the well-documented fact that refugees there face degrading and inhuman conditions.
Our application asks the court
- Declare that if the applicant and her family are forcibly returned to their original country of asylum, they will be subjected to degrading treatment which would breach their human rights as protected under Article 3 of the ECHR
- Declare that Article 24(1)(1) of the International Protection Act is null and void as it violates the applicant’s fundamental rights as enshrined in Articles 32(a) and 39(2) of the Constitution of Malta;
- Declare that Article 24 of the International Protection Act violates Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
- Declare that Article 24 of the International Protection Act is contrary to provisions of Articles 12 and 46 of Directive 2013/32/EC on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection;
- Cancel and revoke the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal against her;
- Give any other order, provision and/or directive that it deems appropriate in the circumstances.
Death in State custody
Mamadou Kamara
PILN lawyers, Dr Eve Borg Costanzi and Dr David Edward Zammit, are supporting Mamadou’s minor daughter in a constitutional case claiming a violation by the Maltese State of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 33 of the Constitution of Malta.
In 2012, Mamadou Kamara, aged 32, died while in the custody of the Detention Services and Armed Forces of Malta (AFM) personnel after being badly beaten by Sergeant Mark Anthony Dimech and Gunner Clive Cuschieri. Both were charged with the murder of Kamara but, over a decade later, criminal proceedings are still ongoing. An independent inquiry, published in 2014, concluded that the AFM personnel had used excessive force that led to the untimely death of Mamadou Kamara. Meanwhile, Dimech and Cuschieri are out on bail and both remained on the AFM payroll.
CASE ONGOING
Read more about the case here
The case concerns a breach of the right to life. The death of Mamadou Kamara, which happened under the responsibility of the State and as a result of the action of State agents, was avoidable. Mamadou Kamara’s family has not been kept informed on the investigation into his death, and eleven years after his killing, there have been no repercussions for the killers.
Our application asks the court to:
- Declare a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 33 of the Constitution of Malta;
- Liquidate an amount of compensation sufficient to make good for such a violation;
- Give any other order, provision and/or directive that it deems appropriate in the circumstances.
Health and safety at work
Jaiteh Lamin
PILN lawyer Dr Gialunca Cappitta is representing Jaiteh Lamin, who was severely injured at work, in a criminal and civil case against his employer, Glen Farrugia. Lamin fell two stories from the construction site in Malta where he was working. Farrugia allegedly drove him away from the site and abandoned him in the road.
CASE ONGOING
Read more about the case here
The case concerns health and safety at work. Lamin is just one of countless construction workers in Malta who have no protection at work. All workers must feel safe and given protection in their place of work, no matter their background.
Protecting Din l-Art Ħelwa’s right to a fair hearing
Quad Towers
PILN lawyers Dr Claire Bonello and Dr Christine Bellizzi filed a constitutional case on behalf of Din l-Art Ħelwa, against the Chairman of the Environmental and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT), based on a violation of the NGO’s right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial Tribunal.
CASE ONGOING
Read more about the case here
The case concerns the EPRT’s rejection of Din l-Art Ħelwa’s appeal against the Planning Authority’s approval of the Quad Towers development in Mriehel. The Planning Authority approval was controversial because, as Din l-Art Ħelwa argued, the Quad Towers site had not been included in the public consultation on high-rise zoning, denying the public the opportunity to file objections or comment on its suitability as a high-rise zone. Additionally, the chairman of the ERPT, Martin Saliba, was employed with the Planning Authority – a party to the appeals process – while presiding over appeals against its decisions. When Din l-Art Ħelwa filed an appeal against the PA’s approval of the development, the tribunal chairman’s dual role and conflict of interest was not publicly known.
The appellant NGO invested time, energy, and resources to finance and file their appeal in a process where their right to a fair hearing was breached without their knowledge and the outcome may have been vitiated due to the EPRT chairman’s dual role and undeclared conflict of interest.
Our application asks the court to:
- Declare that the applicant suffered a violation of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees the right to a proper hearing by an independent tribunal, which right is also guaranteed under Title 6 (Article 47) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
- Give any remedy directive and compensation that it deems appropriate and opportune.
Protecting the right to know
The case was open based on FOI requests for (i) a secret agreement, signed by disgraced minister Konrad Mizzi on behalf of the Maltese Government, on the one hand, and SOCAR Trading SA (a subsidiary of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic) on the other, and (ii) for a report on the feasibility of a second interconnector to Malta.
Both requests were refused by the energy ministry, but the PILN was successful in obtaining them through this case.
The case aims to limit state authorities’ power to arbitrarily refuse to provide information which is in the public interest and to hide behind claims of privacy and commercial sensitivity, and in this way enabling public interest journalism to hold power to account.
CASE CLOSED
Read more about the case here
The case was open based on FOI requests for a secret agreement, signed by Konrad Mizzi on behalf of the Maltese Government and by SOCAR Trading SA, and for a report on the feasibility of a second interconnector to Malta. Both requests were refused by the energy ministry, but the PILN was successful in obtaining them through this case.
Our application asks the court to:
- Declare that the energy minister’s refusal to provide access to the requested information violates the Constitutional right to free expression and information;
- Rule that the FOI Act’s remedies for rejected requests infringe an applicant’s fundamental rights;
- Declare null and void specific parts of the FOI Act that are in conflict with the Constitutional right to free expression and information;
- Take appropriate steps to offer redress to the applicant.
