Daphne Project: nastavak rada nakon ubojstva novinarke

The Daphne Project was created to ensure that the murder of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia would not end the reporting she had begun. Caruana Galizia was killed by a car bomb near her home in Malta on 16 October 2017. She had spent years examining alleged corruption, conflicts of interest, political influence and opaque business relationships. Her reporting made her one of Malta’s best-known journalists and also exposed her to sustained threats and harassment.

After her death, the international journalism organisation Forbidden Stories coordinated a group of reporters who continued several of her unfinished investigations. The initiative became known as the Daphne Project. Its central principle was simple: killing a journalist should not be allowed to stop the publication of information that is in the public interest.

How the project continued her work

Forbidden Stories worked with journalists from multiple countries and news organisations. They examined Caruana Galizia’s notes, published articles, records and digital files, while also carrying out new reporting. The participating journalists compared documents, verified testimony and sought responses from people and organisations named in the reporting.

The project did not treat Caruana Galizia’s previous reporting as proof of every allegation. Instead, each newsroom was responsible for checking evidence and distinguishing documented facts from claims that required further investigation. This approach was especially important in stories involving public officials, companies and individuals who could face serious reputational consequences.

The subjects examined by the Daphne Project

The published work examined several subjects that had appeared in Caruana Galizia’s reporting. One major area concerned 17 Black, a company identified in the Panama Papers as a prospective source of payments for companies connected with senior Maltese political figures. The Daphne Project examined the company’s links, the role attributed to it in documents and the responses of the people involved. Reports described allegations and documentary findings; they did not by themselves establish criminal responsibility.

Another strand concerned Pilatus Bank, a Maltese bank whose activities and ownership had attracted scrutiny from journalists and regulators. Reporting by the Daphne Project and its partners examined questions surrounding the bank’s customers, corporate structures and regulatory treatment. The coverage included responses from the bank and other relevant parties where available.

The project also revisited the international networks described in the Panama Papers. These records showed how companies and trusts could be established across different jurisdictions. The existence of an offshore structure is not, on its own, evidence of unlawful conduct. The journalistic question was how such structures were used, who controlled them and whether public declarations, regulatory obligations or conflicts of interest were involved.

Why cross-border cooperation mattered

Many of the records connected to the Maltese investigations crossed national borders. Companies were registered in one jurisdiction, accounts were held in another and individuals or public officials operated in a third. No single newsroom could easily examine every part of such a network.

International collaboration allowed reporters to work with documents and local knowledge from different countries. Partner organisations included Forbidden Stories and newsrooms such as Reuters, The Guardian, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, The Times of Malta and other investigative outlets. The exact role of each partner differed by story, and publication decisions remained subject to the editorial standards of the participating organisations.

Reporting after a journalist’s murder

The Daphne Project also raised a broader question about the safety of investigative journalists. Caruana Galizia’s killing demonstrated the risks faced by reporters investigating powerful interests, particularly when threats are not followed by effective protection or accountability.

Continuing her work was not presented as an attempt to reproduce her voice or replace her editorial judgment. It was a collective effort to examine material she had left behind, pursue questions that remained unanswered and give the public access to reporting that might otherwise have disappeared with her.

“You can kill a journalist, but you cannot kill the story.”

Forbidden Stories, principle associated with the organisation’s work to continue investigations by murdered journalists

Accuracy, fairness and the public record

Investigations connected with the Daphne Project involved allegations, leaked documents, corporate records and official proceedings. Such material requires careful interpretation. Documents can be incomplete, names can appear in records without proving wrongdoing, and allegations can change as courts, regulators or investigators examine them.

For that reason, responsible reporting identifies the origin of a document, explains what it does and does not show, and includes the responses of those affected. It also separates established facts from accusations and avoids presenting an unresolved investigation as a final judgment.

Sources and original reporting

This article is based on information published by Forbidden Stories about the Daphne Project and on reporting by participating organisations, including Reuters, The Guardian, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung and The Times of Malta. Additional context comes from public records and established reporting on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s work, the Panama Papers, 17 Black and Pilatus Bank.

The Daphne Project remains an important example of collaborative investigative journalism: a method in which independent newsrooms share expertise, verify complex evidence and continue reporting when an attack is intended to silence the public record.

Napomena uredništva: Ovaj pregled sažima javno poznato istraživanje i upućuje na izvorno novinarsko djelo. Ne iznosi nove optužbe.