Updated 12.10pm
An appeal court on Thursday confirmed the decision of another court to reject NGO Repubblika’s request for police to take criminal action against Pilatus Bank's top officials.
Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrara, in the Criminal Court, found that the police’s hands were tied because the police did not have the legal power to take action for serious charges such as money laundering. This fell under the power of the Attorney General.
So far, the Attorney General had issued a nolle prosequi – a decision not to prosecute – for some former Pilatus Bank officials. This decision is being contested in court.
Scerri Herrara on Thursday ruled that she could not assume that the AG had no intention to press charges against other officials.
If a nolle prosequi was issued in their regard, then this decision could be contested.
However, since the police had no say in this, the legal challenge could not be addressed towards them.
She added that if the AG charged the officials with heavier crimes like money laundering after the police charged them with lesser crimes (which the police had the power to do), this would constitute double jeopardy since the two sets of charges would be issued over the same facts.
What is the case about?
The case centres on a magisterial inquiry which concluded that various Pilatus Bank officials should face criminal charges on the suspicion of money laundering, criminal association and other crimes.
The magisterial inquiry also found possible trading in influence between its chairman Ali Sadr and former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri.
But while international arrest warrants were issued for the arrest of various bank officials, they were not charged.
In 2022, Repubblika went to court in an attempt to force the police to charge the other officials named in the inquiry.
Magistrate Nadine Lia, who presided over the challenge, rejected the request on the basis that the evidence brought forward was not sufficient to issue such an order.
Former Repubblika president Robert Aquilina appealed the decision.
He argued that he presented a substantial amount of evidence before the court, including an authenticated copy of the Pilatus Inquiry and internal emails from the Police Force.
He also noted that the judgment was riddled with legal and factual errors and that its conclusions were based on these inaccuracies.
During submissions made before Scerri Herrera, presiding over the appeal, lawyer Jason Azzopardi said the first court had said that the reports exhibited by Aquilina did not include the names of the people to be charged, but they clearly did.
Many documents were exhibited, including the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry, yet all were ignored.
Azzopardi described the decision as “flabbergasting” and “contradictory”.
He added the court said it would not enter into the merits of the case, but then went into the merits of the case by saying there was “hearsay and speculation” - without specifying what she meant.
He described as “legal heresy” the magistrate's conclusion that the police’s hands were tied due to the pending international arrest warrants.
In the past, charges had been filed before warrants were executed, he argued.
Azzopardi added that Magistrate Lia was not objective in the way she treated the case.
She seemed to be more concerned about how Aquilina obtained the documents he exhibited, than about the content of those documents, and ordered an investigation into this.
Attorney General lawyer Ramon Bonett Sladden called for the appeal to be rejected. He said that the method of issuing charges was a matter of approach.
The prosecution could decide to issue them before requesting an international arrest warrant, or after.
He said the law did not state that the conclusions of a magisterial inquiry “are the last word”.
The prosecution can choose to issue different charges and charge different people than the ones identified in the inquiry.
He added that the legal challenge was not necessary, as it could lead to two concurrent prosecutions: one led by the AG and one by the police.
Reacting to the court's decision, Repubblika's Robert Aquilina told Facebook followers the NGO's "fight" over the matter continues with its case against Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg.
Repubblika is challenging the AG’s decision not to prosecute top Pilatus Bank officials.