Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544495
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 19 ARPIL 2026 OPINION & LAW Wages have to be paid irrespective of employment registration with authorities Charlene Baldacchino Gauci and Andrew Drago Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Graziella Attard Previ PN MP and spokesperson for equality, civil liberties and public broadcasting Public broadcasting or political broadcasting? THE principle of having a level playing field is essential to ensure political com- petition remains fair, transparent, and representative of the public will. Yet, growing concerns have emerged regarding the ways in which the gov- ernment is leveraging the power of in- cumbency, particularly through state media and state-funded advertising to shape public perception and consolidate political advantage. While incumbency provides certain structural benefits, the current situation raises questions about the health of our democracy. At the core lies the blurred line be- tween legitimate government com- munication and partisan promotion. Governments must inform citizens about policies, public services, and na- tional developments. However, when such communication begins to resem- ble political marketing by highlighting achievements in a selectively positive light, omitting criticism, and amplifying the image of ruling figures, it risks cross- ing into propaganda. In Malta, the state media outlet, the Public Broadcasting Services (PBS), funded through public funds, has increasingly become a vehi- cle for this kind of messaging, present- ing government narratives with limited scrutiny or balance. Public funds are meant to serve the col- lective interest. Yet, when government campaigns dominate the airwaves with messages that mirror political slogans or emphasise leadership personalities, it becomes difficult to distinguish pub- lic information from political branding. Thus, taxpayers are effectively financing content that promotes one side of the political spectrum. Limited plurality in media ownership already creates challenges for balanced reporting. When state media fails to provide a neutral platform, it further narrows the space for independent voic- es. The implications extend beyond media ethics and into the broader functioning of democracy. Free and fair elections depend on the quality of information available to voters. If the ruling party can dominate the narrative through in- stitutional advantages, it skews elector- al competition in subtle but significant ways. This is not unique to Malta, but it re- minds us of the regimes in authoritarian countries. Some of us remember times when the only permitted television and radio stations were those owned by the state; when the name of the Opposition leader was not mentioned on these sta- tions. This situation sits uneasily within the expectations of a European democ- racy. Membership in the EU carries with it a commitment to values such as media freedom. While Malta formally upholds these principles, the misuse of state me- dia and public funds for political gain challenges their practical application. The news bulletins on PBS resemble a notice board for ministerial activi- ties. The 8pm news bulletin, especially, leaves much to be desired. It is often too long, at times taking 20 minutes or more to mention a news item involving the Opposition. Besides, government ad- vertisements are annoying the audience who cannot enjoy popular shows such as the recent Mużika Mużika, without feeling inundated by propaganda. Un- surprisingly, many deem the national broadcaster as an extension of the La- bour Party media machine. Addressing this issue requires a mul- tifaceted approach. Clearer boundaries must be established between govern- ment information campaigns and polit- ical messaging. Independent oversight bodies could play a stronger role in monitoring state advertising to ensure it adheres to neutrality standards. Re- forms aimed at strengthening media in- dependence would help restore balance and credibility. Greater transparency on public spending on advertising would allow citizens to better understand how their money is being used. Ultimately, the question is not wheth- er the government should communicate with Maltese citizens, but how it does. In a democracy, communication should in- form rather than persuade and educate rather than influence. Malta's current trajectory suggests a need for recalibra- tion. Reaffirming Malta's commitment to democratic fairness is not only a domes- tic necessity but a reflection of our place within the European community. ON 27 March 2026, the Appeals Court confirmed the guilty verdict against two directors of Schembri Infrastructure Ltd for failing to pay their employee, Boiken Cela, €17,051 in wages, statutory entitle- ments and allowances. The original judgment was delivered by the Magistrates Court in its criminal ju- dicature, on 23 July 2025. The directors had appealed the judgment on several grounds. The appellants contended that the pros- ecution had failed to produce the best ev- idence to prove they were directors of the company. They argued that such proof should have consisted of the company's Memorandum and Articles of Association and its annual returns, and the burden of producing this evidence lay with the pros- ecution. The Appeals Court rejected this argument, holding that the testimony of the Registrar of Companies, confirming that they are directors, constituted suffi- cient proof. The appellants also argued that the charges were time-barred due to the lapse of one year. They submitted that they had only been formally notified of the accusa- tions on 6 May 2022, whereas the employ- ee's last day of work was on 11 May 2020. The court, however, noted that although the employee had been working in May 2020, his employment was not formally registered with JobsPlus at that time. Following a workplace injury sustained on 11 May 2020, the employee was enti- tled to one year of injury leave. The court therefore determined that the relevant pe- riod of employment extended from 28 Ju- ly 2020 (the date of registration with Job- sPlus) to 10 May 2021. Consequently, the charges were not time-barred. The court further clarified that the prescriptive peri- od begins to run from the date of the last violation, which, in this case, correspond- ed to the last day of employment. The appellants also argued that the 18-month prescriptive period under the Civil Code, applicable to claims for pay- ment of salaries, should apply, given that the court had ordered the payment of out- standing salaries. However, this argument was also rejected. The Appeals Court held that the order to pay wages arose from the criminal offence established under the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, and thus the prescriptive period un- der civil law was irrelevant. The appellants also challenged the method used by the first court to calculate the amount due to the employee. They ar- gued the agreed wage was €5 per hour, not €7 per hour as determined by the court, and that any compensation awarded should only cover the period following the registration of the employment contract with JobsPlus. The court dismissed these arguments, referring to an email clearly indicated that the employee's wage was €7 per hour, without additional bonuses. The court further noted that even prior to reg- istering the contract, the wage paid con- sisted in €7 an hour, hence constituting a tacit agreement. The court emphasised that the obliga- tion to apply for an employee's work per- mit and register such employment with JobsPlus lay with the employer, not the employee. The court underscored that the employers had benefitted from the employee's work prior to the issuance of the work permit and registration and thus could not invoke their own default as a defence. The court also noted that it was per- plexed at the fact that the appellants were using their own wrongdoings to try and obtain an advantage at the expense of the employee. The Appeals Court noted how the ap- pellants sought to evade their responsibil- ities by making reference to rights with no basis at law and instead sought to put the blame on their employee. Accordingly, the Appeals Court con- firmed the judgment in its entirety.