Chris Cardona said he was not involved in the Vitals hospitals discussions leading up to the 2014 memorandum of understanding, insisting that he did read the document before signing, contrary to what he claims was misreported on Wednesday.

The former economy minister returned to the witness stand on Thursday, summoned by the prosecution in the second Vitals case against Chris Fearne, Edward Scicluna and other top public officials.

But before answering the prosecution’s questions, the witness said he wished to inform the court about something and he wanted to do so “because today they’ll say that I changed my version.”

Cardona referred to media coverage of his testimony at parallel proceedings against Joseph Muscat, Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi on Wednesday.

“Reporting of my testimony, particularly by Times of Malta and Malta Today, went totally against what I testified,” he said.

“I’m informing the court because today they’ll say that I changed my version. These are malicious people…" the former minister went on, in an animated manner.

But he was cut short by the magistrate who told him that he could take appropriate action.

“However I can assure you that this court and any other court will rely on what you say not what is reported on any news portal,” said Magistrate Leonard Caruana, promptly dealing with the issue.

With that preliminary issue out of the way, the hearing proceeded with questions by the prosecution.

Shown the memorandum, he said it was the same document he was shown on Wednesday in court and the one he signed as economy minister responsible for Malta Enterprise whose client was Barts Medical School.

Discussions with potential investors, as with all memoranda, were handled by Malta Enterprise and he was not involved.

“I presented to the court a list of memoranda signed by me in my few years as minister. It was quite a substantial list. This one [ concerning the hospitals] was not sui generis. It was run of the mill.”

Asked directly by AG lawyer Rebekah Spiteri, Cardona said that he read the MOU before signing, “contrary to what was reported. God forbid if I didn’t.”

It was a non-binding document, focused on Gozo and pegged on two conditions.

The investors were to present a business plan and there was a set of deliverables related to the Barts Medical School.

“We realised in time that what was proposed did not fit within the government’s plan for health.”

The signing of the MOU took place at Castille.

He and Mario Galea, from Malta Enterprise were present together with the signatories.

Asked whether he was involved any further, Cardona replied, “Nothing.”

And was he given any instructions to sign the MOU, asked the prosecutor.

“The staff at the ministry informed me that we needed to sign,” he said.

He had no background information about the investors, saying that the first time he met them was at the signing of the memorandum.

“So after reading it, why did you sign?” the prosecution pressed on.

It was government practice to reach out to investors showing an interest in investing in Malta.

Such potential investors would normally ask for “something in writing.”

But after signing such an MOU, the authorities would carry out studies on the investors.

Verifications and background checks were “not by me,” added Cardona.

“The minister is not there to conduct due diligence. Malta Enterprise always conducts due diligence.”

He insisted that he had nothing to do with the business plans.

Questioned by defence lawyer Stefano Filletti, Cardona said he met no irregularity when signing the MOU and was comfortable signing without reservation.

“Because it was non-binding, so much so that we did not proceed. It… died.”

“What comfort does the government have if the document is non-binding?” asked the prosecution.

“There is some sort of understanding… government entices appetite for investment, while the investor knows that the government is interested,” explained Cardona.

Such an MOU could be presented by the investor to source some banking facility or to acquire “accelerated audit accounts,” said the witness, stressing that whatever the reason, “it was still non-binding.”