Owen Bonnici Reiterates Disputed Claims About PBS Status to Defend Eurovision Expenditures

In a continuing dispute over transparency, Culture Minister Owen Bonnici faces criticism for refusing to disclose financial information about the public broadcaster PBS Ltd, despite court rulings that classify the entity as subject to public disclosure requirements.

Over recent weeks, Bonnici has declined to answer parliamentary questions about PBS expenditures, including specific inquiries about Malta’s Eurovision Song Contest costs. In responses to questions from Opposition spokesperson Julie Zahra, the minister has repeatedly characterized PBS as a “commercial entity” exempt from disclosure obligations.

Legal experts point out that this position directly contradicts established case law. Malta’s courts have consistently ruled that PBS is a public entity bound by transparency requirements due to its taxpayer funding. Most recently, in December 2025, the Court of Appeal under Judge Lawrence Mintoff reaffirmed this status, explicitly rejecting arguments from both the minister and PBS that the broadcaster operates outside public law.

“The minister is effectively ignoring binding court judgments to justify withholding information from Parliament and the public,” said one legal observer familiar with the case. “This raises serious questions about governmental accountability.”

The controversy extends beyond ministerial statements. PBS itself has employed similar arguments in response to Freedom of Information requests, with company secretary Mark Vassallo consistently claiming commercial exemptions from disclosure obligations—claims that have been repeatedly rejected in court proceedings.

The transparency dispute takes on greater significance considering PBS’s financial structure. The broadcaster relies heavily on public funding, with The Shift news outlet recently revealing that PBS signed a previously undisclosed public service contract with the government last summer. This agreement, negotiated under Bonnici’s oversight, guarantees the broadcaster €9 million annually until 2029.

Media analysts note that Eurovision participation typically involves substantial expenditures across multiple categories, including production costs, promotional activities, travel arrangements, and technical logistics. In many European countries, these costs are publicly reported as a matter of routine transparency.

“The public has a right to know how their money is being spent on international cultural events,” said a former broadcasting executive who requested anonymity. “Particularly for high-profile competitions like Eurovision, where costs can escalate quickly.”

The controversy surrounding PBS extends beyond Eurovision financing. Critics have raised concerns about how public funds are allocated for current affairs programming and other content on TVM, the main PBS television channel. Previous reporting by The Shift has highlighted potential conflicts of interest, with some programs allegedly presented by individuals with close political and business connections to the current administration.

Media watchdog organizations have expressed concern about what they describe as “political capture” of the national broadcaster. “When a publicly funded broadcaster lacks transparency, it undermines public trust in both the media outlet and the government oversight mechanisms,” said a representative from a European broadcasting association.

The ongoing dispute highlights broader questions about media independence in Malta, a topic that has received increased international attention in recent years following concerns raised by European Union monitoring bodies about media pluralism and independence in the country.

As the controversy continues, opposition members have indicated they will continue pressing for disclosure of PBS finances, potentially through additional parliamentary questions and legal challenges if necessary.