The subpoena served by the Industrial Court to the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, Gabriel Faria, businessman Frank Mouttet and attorney Derek Ali centred on comments made by Mr Mouttet regarding his views on the court's approach to industrial matters is, in the opinion of this newspaper, deeply troubling.
The Industrial Court itself is yet to explain why these men need to appear next week and provide recorded material of the breakfast session held on November 30 when the comments were made, but it is difficult to understand what business it has in demanding such action.
To begin with, Mr Mouttet was not referring to any specific and current case being heard by the court, nor was he making any specific comment about individual judges.
He was making a generic comment about the court; a personal view, albeit echoed by many others.
It is hard to understand how this could be seen as contempt in any way, shape or form. It is equally hard to see why the court itself is so worried about what was said in a public forum, outside the court and unrelated to any specific case, that warrants the request of recordings and the attendance of those individuals involved.
The courts–and their judges–are entitled to be respected and defend their standing as the judiciary must be trusted to do its job, especially at difficult times such as the ones we are going through. However, it is exactly at times of tension that the courts must act in a calm and considered way.
Following a recent decision by the High Court in the UK against the government's position regarding its Brexit plans, one of the country's leading newspapers published the headline Enemies of the People, followed by pictures of the judges responsible for the decision.
The questionable coverage and potentially hateful headline drew considerable criticisms from all sides but the judges did not see the need to subpoena the Daily Mail's editors or executives for the opinion.
As questionable as the front page might have been, it was seen as part of what comes with public debate of controversial matters.
This newspaper will always fight hard for the responsible use of our constitutional right to freedom of expression.
However, we will fight even harder for every citizen's right to freedom of expression, even when we are at the receiving end of criticisms or when we are reporting views we do not necessarily agree with.
That's because true freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of any strong and working democracy.
If freedom of expression is not fiercely guarded by all of us, the alternative is the state of fear, just one step away from authoritarianism.
That's because freedom of expression does not have to be fully removed to deter open debate; usually it is the fear of a knock on the door that silences people.
Let's truly hope the developments this week involving the Industrial Court and the Chamber of Commerce are not the beginning of something more troubling when it comes to free speech in our country.