This is an example of how corruption eats away at the heart of democracy

Today, Keith Schembri revealed – in his ‘back to the wall’ unspecific denial, issued to the press – that he had his lawyers write to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, demanding all the documentation they had on him, and citing “European law” on data. This shows that he and his lawyers didn’t even know that the ICIJ is an American foundation, based in Washington, and covered by US law. The ICIJ put Schembri’s lawyers straight on that. But in any case, even if they were based in the European Union, there is no European law which allows politicians and public officers (or anyone else) to demand information from journalists. Rather the opposite, in fact. European law protects journalists from being forced to divulge information.

Now imagine if Adrian Hillman did not appear in the Panama Papers because he used another firm, and not Mossack Fonseca, to set up his offshore operation.

What would have happened then? The Times of Malta and The Sunday Times would have gained access to the Panama Papers under the media partnership agreement they have signed, and Adrian Hillman would have gained access to all the documentation about his conspirator Keith Schembri, through his staff, under the guise of wanting to build a story. Then he would have passed the documentation on to Schembri behind his staff’s backs and in violation of the ICIJ agreement. And nobody would have been any the wiser.

But Adrian Hillman was named – copiously – in the Panama Papers and again, the only reason the ICIJ knew he was not just another person but the chairman of the newspaper group will by now be obvious. The name means nothing to people outside Malta. It doesn’t mean anything even to most people who live in Malta. But the fact remains that if I hadn’t written that post about Hillman, and if the board of directors had not forced him to resign and immediately constituted a board of inquiry, the Times of Malta and The Sunday Times would not have been able to sign an agreement with the ICIJ and they wouldn’t have known why until other newspapers broke the story.

I am informed by sources at the Times of Malta that they did not find it easy at all to convince the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to accept the newspaper as a media partner. The newspaper has in fact put very tight controls into place, restricting access to the documents to just a few journalists (there is the same situation at The Malta Independent).

Corruption, especially between the media and politicians, eats away at the heart of democracy. The aim of people like Keith Schembri is to eat away at the independence of the media, going after key people one by one, befriending them, buying them or undermining them. And then he uses the people he buys to bring in others, drawing them into the net. The most conspicuous anomaly in this story is that Saviour Balzan of Malta Today is sticking his neck out for Adrian Hillman. Why does he even have a close relationship with Hillman, who was the chairman of a rival newspaper group? And he hasn’t gone after Keith Schembri at all.

I have no idea why Malta Today wasn’t given access to the Panama Papers, but I don’t think you need to be an expert analyst to work it out. I have no doubt they will have asked for access. A trove like that is a dream come true for journalists. But that’s what happens when you grind your personal axes all over town, use your newspaper to target journalists you hate because of your personal issues instead of investigating politicians, and go easy on corrupt politicians or actually back them, while literally persecuting other politicians just because you bear them a personal grudge. I imagine that a decision was taken that people like that can’t be trusted with information that is so sensitive. Why, one of the first things the newspaper’s 50% owner might have done was give the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and his friend, Adrian Hillman, all the documentation they wanted. You couldn’t blame anyone for reaching those conclusions. I would have reached the same ones.