Robert Aquilina, Repubblika’s President, yesterday drew several significant points from the public inquiry findings. There was one point he highlighted which hasn’t otherwise been emphasised enough, certainly not by Malta’s President and Prime Minister: Daphne is a hero.
This is one section of the inquiry that requires highlighting because justice for Daphne starts with the State recognising who she really was. These words are the first and only unqualified recognition by an institution of the Maltese State of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
And I think this aspect from yesterday’s development is remarkable.
The translation is mine.
(Reuters. Published on La Repubblica)
Daphne Caruana Galizia, the high-quality journalist
The evidence in this inquiry establishes, if this was ever in doubt, the undoubted fact that is vital for this investigation, that Daphne Caruana Galizia was a high-quality journalist that for many years dedicated her life to investigating the conduct of the public administration in search of truth to ensure good governance for the country.
In the service of her mission, she needed to investigate serious allegations of bad administration, abuse of power, and inappropriate conduct, illicit or otherwise, in State entities and by people who were either in positions of authority or commanded financial and business power.
There is no doubt this work exposed her to great risks because often what she reported on the back of her deep investigations, not only scuppered plans intended for profit but also, and perhaps more seriously, spoilt plans for illicit profits, proceeds from bad and suspicious public administration.
Much has been written and remains to be written about the life and writings of Daphne Caruana Galizia and the impact her journalism had and continues to have on the social and political life of our times. No one, not her greatest critics nor those who allegedly eliminated her, can put in doubt her skill and the incisiveness of her investigations. Her tenacity when following an investigation to its end no matter the consequences and the courage she needed to publish stories that have certainly placed her in great danger reached, in the opinion of some, the extent of irresponsibility.
In some respects, she was aware of her influence and the fact that her direct and uncompromising way of exposing the facts she learned from her investigations, her incisive and credible analysis, and her decisions to publish could influence events in the country. Many loved and admired her because of her writing. Many others however hated and derided her. This is shown in the thousands that followed her ‘Running Commentary’ and who actively participated in a dialogue with her, right or wrong.
Throughout her life, and even more so after she was assassinated, she was an icon for free journalism in her country, in Europe, and beyond. It is not for this Board to express an opinion on Caruana Galizia’s investigations, their worth, the correctness of the facts, and the style she used to expose them. Nor is it for the Board to express a view on what motivated her to conduct the investigations she chose and whether those motivations went beyond her passion for the search for truth and her contempt for what she deemed wrongful, abusive, and corrupt.
(…)
A victim of her abilities and her success
The accuracy of the facts exposed by the journalist assassinated as a consequence of her journalism, in their detail, her perceptive analysis of those facts, the reliable sources she had access to, and the conclusions she reached with extraordinary precision were surprising even at the time she published them.
They became even more surprising when with time, particularly after her death, it became clear there had been so much substance to her allegations of serious failings in public administration. The allegations were truly worrying. The failings undermined good governance and the rule of law.
There can be little doubt that Caruana Galizia became a victim of her skills as an investigative journalist. She was a victim of the success of the publication of the information she acquired from knowledgeable sources, researched and interpreted against the background of familiarity with the way the public administration and the mentality of Maltese society worked.
This does not mean there had never been times when her contributions were found not altogether backed by adequately proven facts. But these were exceptions and even those had elements of truth that deserved to be investigated.
By way of example, a magisterial inquiry declared there had been no evidence the company in Panama Egrant belonged to the then prime minister and his family. That inquiry however cast no doubt on the existence of Egrant nor did it establish who the ultimate beneficial owner of Egrant had been.
The same can be said for the serious allegation that the prime minister’s chief of staff had been suffering from a terminal illness that had not been proven. It had been proven however that he traveled for medical care overseas at the expense of the person who is now accused of the assassination.
It is not for this Board to pass definitive judgment on whether these assertions and other similar ones by Caruana Galizia were truthful. No doubt Dr Muscat and Mr Schembri had every right to be annoyed and angered if these allegations about them were not true.
The fact however remains that:
- The allegations were not frivolous or made lightly but the product of information obtained by Caruana Galizia, even if it had been erroneous or incomplete;
- More importantly for this Board, Dr Muscat and Mr Schembri asserted to this inquiry that however grevious these allegations may have been they would never have caused them to retaliate violently towards the journalist and they unreservedly condemned the murder to this Board.
In this context, the Board finds Caruana Galizia often completed her writings with references to aspects of the social lives of politically exposed persons and of persons that were close to the public administration or the party in government.
Frequent references to personal life and private relationships were written in a way that may have caused offense or pain. This was the controversial and objectionable aspect of Caruana Galizia’s writing that for many amounted to gossip rather than serious journalism. There may have been people who rightly felt offended, even seriously so, by this sort of writing. But there is no evidence that the assassination may have been motivated by somebody’s extreme reaction to the writing of this sort.
On the other hand, the Board must reiterate that, while it may share even serious reservations on this aspect of Mrs Caruana Galizia’s writings, not every report on the personal lives of these people and their suspicious relationships with politically exposed persons or persons near them, deserves to be criticised.
In fact, the evidence shows and new facts continue to emerge that show that allegations of a certain type of relationship were anything but unconnected to public maladministration and to the persons involved in it. There are indications of grave evidence of occurrences where these situations were exploited to obtain favours and access information for financial or other gains.
Today, now that most of Caruana Galizia’s stories about these relationships are being corroborated, one appreciates that their publication was more than justified. Naturally where truth is proven the public interest prevails over the private.
Private relationships and the lifestyle one choose for themselves should be protected and respected by journalists. As a rule, they should not be subjected to investigative journalism. Unless these relationships and lifestyles are used and manipulated as a weapon in the exercise of power, wielded for personal advancement and enrichment at the expense of the common good.