Media

Legal intimidation takes new form in Latin America


The author is president of the board of directors of Corporación La Prensa

Public scrutiny and freedom of the press are under threat in Panama, home of the famous canal and also large legal services and offshore banking sectors. Last month, a judge froze $1.13m in assets of La Prensa, the country’s leading newspaper, as part of a defamation lawsuit filed by former president Ernesto Pérez Balladares over a 2012 article that linked him to money-laundering. (Mr Pérez Balladares has denied the relevant allegations.)

The ruling came despite the fact the case is eight years old, is still in its initial phase and there has been no finding on its merits. Given that Panama is among those countries ensnared by Odebrecht’s giant corruption scandal, the ruling also sets a precedent that could threaten national and even hemispheric anti-corruption efforts.

Panamanian law allows for the freezing of assets in commercial disputes. But the judge in Mr Pérez Balladares’ case utilised this process in a libel claim. This is of particular concern to Corporación La Prensa, the company that publishes La Prensa and Mi Diario newspapers and of which I am president. It faces 12 civil defamation lawsuits and 22 criminal cases for libel, in which claimants have demanded a total $85m in compensation.

Of these lawsuits, 15 — totalling $46m in claimed damages — are from former president Ricardo Martinelli, who was extradited from the US in 2018 to face charges of illegally wiretapping during his 2009-14 time in office. Mr Martinelli, who denies wrongdoing and was declared not guilty last year by a junior court, has said he is the victim of a political vendetta; the case is currently in appeal at the Supreme Court.

La Prensa has long warned that Panama’s current civil procedures do not protect freedom of expression, or the public’s right to information. Indeed, the Inter-American Press Association stated in this year’s country report that: “Legislation enables the claimant [in a lawsuit] to seek the freezing of assets, which could paralyse the continuous and uninterrupted operation of the media.”

In fact, the risk is far greater as any individual or citizen is at risk of having their assets frozen in a libel lawsuit, and before a court finds wrongdoing. Although current law excludes serving government officials, former officials and private citizens can sue.

To cite just one recent example among many: in 2016, an energy company blamed the complaints of activist Larissa Duarte as the cause for the cancellation of a hydroelectric project and sued her for $10m. The lawsuit was dismissed the following year.

That such mechanisms are used against critics is a subversion of the rule of law. Indeed, all the lawsuits that La Prensa faces are from public figures and former government officials who claim their reputations have been damaged by our coverage of issues of legitimate public interest. The intent of such cases is clear: to bleed us out with legal fees in the defence of endless frivolous lawsuits. Furthermore, with each lawsuit now comes the substantial risk of a court-ordered freezing of assets before courts rule.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has strenuously warned of the pernicious effects that such judicial intimidation can have in Latin America. Sadly, there is little hope of swift justice in Panama, a country that was ranked 129 out of 141 countries in terms of judicial independence in the World Economic Forum’s 2019 global competitiveness report.

Panama has made important advances since the end of the military dictatorship in 1989. But its democracy rests on unstable ground. In particular, its judicial system needs to be able handle libel claims fairly if there is to be vigorous public debate and proper vigilance of the use of public funds — key attributes of any functioning liberal democracy.



READ SOURCE

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.