Attorney General Peter Grech has defended his decision not to publish all of the findings in the Egrant inquiry report, saying these were related to other investigations. He justified his conduct saying he wanted to safeguard third-party privacy rights.
Some of the “other conclusions” which had been kept hidden included instructions to investigate Nexia BT partner Karl Cini for perjury, Egrant whistleblower Maria Efimova for calumny, Pilatus Bank’s operation in terms of money laundering, plans for the setting up of a Malta-China offshore partnership and former FIAU manager Jonathan Ferris.
The Attorney General outlined the reasons behind his decision not to publish these and other conclusions in a brief statement published on Wednesday.
Dr Grech was reacting to criticism levelled at his Office that he had withheld important information for partisan motives. These attacks were made in the wake of the publication of the entire 1,500-page inquiry report by the leader of the Opposition on Tuesday, through which new findings came to light.
Compiled by Magistrate Aaron Bugeja, the report looked into claims made by Daphne Caruana Galizia and whistleblower Maria Efimova that secret Panama company Egrant belonged to the Prime Minister or his wife.
Though the report had been presented to the Attorney General in July 2018, only the main conclusions had been published, saying there was no evidence linking the Prime Minister to Egrant.
The Attorney General said that even in 2018 he had made it clear that such restriction was being made to limit the invasion of privacy of third parties mentioned incidentally in the report and the need to protect other related investigations
However, the government’s refusal to publish the entire report prompted Opposition leader Adrian Delia to mount a legal challenge. The saga came to an end last Monday when the appeals court ordered the Attorney General to hand over a full copy of the report to Dr Delia.
In his statement, the Attorney General pointed out that when the redacted version had been published, he had never claimed that all of the conclusions were being released but only the “principal” ones.
The Attorney General said that even in 2018 he had made it clear that such restriction was being made to “limit the invasion of privacy of third parties mentioned incidentally in the report and the need to protect other related investigations”.
The “other conclusions” which immediately follow the “main conclusions” of the report actually relate to other investigations, Dr Grech said.