The Guardian has won its appeal against an Iraqi court ruling which judged that the paper had defamed the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
The Iraqi National Intelligence Service (INIS) brought the libel action after the Guardian reported criticism of al-Maliki and the INIS in an article published in April 2009. The Al-Karakh primary court judged in November 2009 that the report was defamatory and ordered the Guardian to pay a fine of 100m dinar (£52,000).
However, the Iraqi appeal court ruled on 28 December that the article did not cause any defamation or harm to al-Maliki or the INIS, overturning the earlier court ruling.The Guardian welcomed the appeal court ruling, saying that the earlier defamation charge "amounted to an unjustified interference with the media's right to report on the activities of politicians and public officials".
In making its decision, the appeal court consulted nine experts nominated by the Iraqi Union of Journalists who unanimously agreed that the article was not defamatory. The court ordered the INIS pay costs and legal fees.
The article in question, written by the Guardian's award-winning Iraq correspondent, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, described fears inside Iraq that the prime minister was ruling in an increasingly autocratic manner. It reported the views of three intelligence officers, and a range of others, who commented on the nature of al-Maliki's rule.
Article 19, the campaign group for freedom of expression, and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), submitted a joint amicus brief in support of the Guardian and reviewing international standards for freedom of expression.The organisations also argued that the charge of defamation "disregarded well-established international law which guarantees the rights of the media to critically evaluate the activities of governments and their elected leaders".
Aidan White, the general secretary of the IFJ, said he welcomed the appeal court ruling. "This is good news for Iraq and the wider Middle East for two reasons. First, it underscores the right of journalists to report and comment fairly in the actions of public figures and, secondly, it shows the democratic values and respect for press freedom are taking root in Iraq," White added.
The case was an "important challenge" for press freedom in the region, he said. "This case shows that in a democracy even the most powerful in the land can be called to account. It is a case that tested just how much progress has been made in creating a new culture of press freedom. The results are more than encouraging."
Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
The Iraqi National Intelligence Service (INIS) brought the libel action after the Guardian reported criticism of al-Maliki and the INIS in an article published in April 2009. The Al-Karakh primary court judged in November 2009 that the report was defamatory and ordered the Guardian to pay a fine of 100m dinar (£52,000).
However, the Iraqi appeal court ruled on 28 December that the article did not cause any defamation or harm to al-Maliki or the INIS, overturning the earlier court ruling.The Guardian welcomed the appeal court ruling, saying that the earlier defamation charge "amounted to an unjustified interference with the media's right to report on the activities of politicians and public officials".
In making its decision, the appeal court consulted nine experts nominated by the Iraqi Union of Journalists who unanimously agreed that the article was not defamatory. The court ordered the INIS pay costs and legal fees.
The article in question, written by the Guardian's award-winning Iraq correspondent, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, described fears inside Iraq that the prime minister was ruling in an increasingly autocratic manner. It reported the views of three intelligence officers, and a range of others, who commented on the nature of al-Maliki's rule.
Article 19, the campaign group for freedom of expression, and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), submitted a joint amicus brief in support of the Guardian and reviewing international standards for freedom of expression.The organisations also argued that the charge of defamation "disregarded well-established international law which guarantees the rights of the media to critically evaluate the activities of governments and their elected leaders".
Aidan White, the general secretary of the IFJ, said he welcomed the appeal court ruling. "This is good news for Iraq and the wider Middle East for two reasons. First, it underscores the right of journalists to report and comment fairly in the actions of public figures and, secondly, it shows the democratic values and respect for press freedom are taking root in Iraq," White added.
The case was an "important challenge" for press freedom in the region, he said. "This case shows that in a democracy even the most powerful in the land can be called to account. It is a case that tested just how much progress has been made in creating a new culture of press freedom. The results are more than encouraging."
Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
0 Comments