A person facing criminal proceedings has a right to silence when called to testify before a parliamentary committee and any ruling or guideline to the contrary would be in breach of fundamental rights, the Constitutional Court confirmed today.

The case has originally been taken before the court by Frank Sammut, one of the persons implicated in the Enemalta oil procurement scandal. He been called to testify before the Public Accounts Committee while proceedings in his regard were still ongoing in court.

Since any deposition on his part could result in self-incrimination, Mr Sammut had refused to appear before the committee, prompting a ruling in February 2014 stating that the Speaker was to have the final say over whether any question was incriminating or not.

Mr Sammut had successfully argued before the Civil Court that this ruling as well as the Guide for Witnesses appearing before the Public Accounts Committee was in breach of his right to silence.

The House of Representatives and the PAC appealed before the Constitutional Court, which, however, reaffirmed the judgment of the First Court, clearly stating that both the Guide and the Speaker’s Ruling were in breach of the witness’s right to silence.

The Parliamentary Guide laid down that a witness before the PAC was bound to testify and could only be exempted if a particular question was deemed to be self-incriminating.

Moreover, these rules of procedure went so far as to envisage punitive sanctions in respect of any witness who chose to exercise his fundamental right to silence so as to avoid self-incrimination.

Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri and Mr Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Noel Cuschieri reaffirmed the supremacy of the right to silence .

Lawyer Joe Giglio was counsel to Mr Sammut.