1. It was most unfair and unjust on the part of The Broadcasting Authority to fine Smash Television five hundred Malta Liri (Lm 500) for its interview with European Parliament election candidate Norman Lowell during the programme Minibus of June 15th.

2. Assuming the Broadcasting Authority had a legal right to fine Smash TV (no one can be a judge in his own cause), Smash Television had no control over what Mr. Lowell might have said during the June 15th programme.

3. I was away from Malta on that date, though I presume that the programme went on air live, as usually occurs with the series Minibus presented by Mr. Andrew Farrugia.

4. Smash Television was the only Television Station that represented the true principles of broadcasting pluralism during the recent European Parliament Election campaign. Were it not for Smash TV, the electorate in Malta and Gozo would not even have been aware of the ten (10) independent candidates, including the two representing ALPHA: Partit Politiku, that were all so contesting these elections, as the three other tv stations and their respective radio stations, hardly made any reference in their many political programmes to the ‘independent’. Indeed, once it was becoming clear that their was a strong element of serious and constructive opposition from these independent candidates, the established political parties and then even Alternativa acted as is these independents were not on the European Election campaign trail at all, a move which actually indicated how unsuitable were these three political parties for the political culture which the European parliament elections were meant to generate.

5. With all due respect, if the Broadcasting Authority had any authority at all, it would seem they should have intervened and saw to it that PBS b, Net TV and Super one aired programmes which gave adequate time and space for the independents to be able to promote their particular political programmes, and this in terms of Malta’s Broadcasting Act. Smash TV was the only one conformed to our Broadcasting Act in this matter, and the Broadcasting Authority should have commended Smash TV and not – in my opinion – to add insult to injury fine Smash TV: is this some attempt to smash SMASH TV ?

6. It is the responsibility of any interviewee to act responsibly when being interviewed in any section of the media, without however any hindrance to the fundamental rights of liberty of expression and speech. Naturally, the interviewer must be competent enough to control the interviewee without interrupting the flow of a logical argument, as for instance happens in other local, very popular programmes where an analytical discussion of any important theme is non-existent, despite the huge popularity with the masses of the programme. Again, Smash TV allowed all the participants in the election campaign to voice their opinions in accordance with their political platform within reasonable time and space, an asset, which was provided by no other TV station, including our National Broadcasting Station when it was its paramount duty to provide such space.

7. Some have queried whether the Broadcasting Authority had some hidden objective when fining SMASH five-hundred Malta Liri (Lm 500), when in reality it is the considered opinion of a number of eligible persons that the BA had no democratic legal right to do so in accordance with the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

8. Their were other remedies in accordance with the law that could have been provided both on Smash TV and on other Broadcasting outlets without the BA having to resort to fines against Smash, when indeed it should have been the other Broadcasting Stations that should have been duly penalized for running counter to the principles of objectivity and impartiality when it came to broadcasting political issues during the European Parliament Election Campaign.

9. The BA went even further when it stated that usually it would have fined Smash TV two-hundred Malta Liri (LM200), but in this instance it deemed fit to augment this fine to a further three-hundred Malta Liri (LM300), so that the fine would read LM500!

10. In your report (July 8th), you stated that Smash had objected to the procedures, arguing that the body charging it was the same as that judging it.

11. The Broadcasting Authority knows very well that currently there is a lawsuit pending before the first hall of the civil courts, presided by Mr. Justice Noel Cuschieri LL.D, which precisely relates to this moot, legal point. The parties to this lawsuit are non-other than “ Smash Communications ltd – versus – the Broadcasting Authority and Dr Kevin Aquilina in his capacity as the Authority’s Chief Executive”. One here wonders, without much humility, whether this exaggerated fine had anything to do with the fact that Smash Communications ltd had the democratic guts to file this lawsuit in the first place!

12. This is not a matter against any individual personally, because currently the Broadcasting Authority is regaled with Emeritus Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal, two experienced Lawyers, a Legal Procurator, and a person known amiably as Malta’s broadcasting fox, who himself was an ex-Chief Executive for many, many years. These highly competent persons in the broadcasting media know full well that at some time or other, this issue had to be decided before a Court of Law in accordance with the fundamental principles of the rule of Law, as no-one can be a judge in his own cause, and there is no doubt about it that the Chief Executive of the Broadcasting Authority is part and parcel of the Broadcasting Authority, even though the BA reasons out that it is the Chief Executive who issues any particular accusation and the board assesses the legal arguments for and against any particular accusation.

13. There is in fact no categoric and undoubted clear distinction between the Chief Executive of the Broadcasting Authority and The Broadcasting Authority and therefore there is much sense in the legal submission that this is an instance were one is being a judge in his own cause and it is no argument for the authority to dismiss this objection by merely stating that the Broadcasting Act provided for a fair process within which those who made the accusation did not take part in the deliberations as judge: one humbly begs to differ on this point!

14. Hence, one sincerely hopes that this is not an attempt to smashing SMASH, as this would go against the fundamental principles of a pluralistic broadcasting law which only Smash TV fulfilled and which was grosley violated by the other broadcasting media controlled and manipulated as they are by the two major Political Parties. One hopes a solution will be found in this matter by duly awaiting a Court decision on this matter until pronounced ‘res iudicata’ even if it has to imply an eventual decision by the European Court of Fundamental Right, as we apparently seem to be forgetting when it suits us that we are now members of the European Union!