The Opposition’s request for urgency in its case filed against the State Advocate over alleged inaction in recovering funds from the 'fraudulent' hospitals' deal was turned down by the court which, however, observed that the lawsuit deserved priority.
It scheduled a first hearing in January.
That was the outcome of a decree delivered by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti on Friday following objections to the request filed on Thursday by the State Advocate who argued that there was no legal basis for urgency.
The State Advocate on Thursday said there was no legal basis for urgency in what was a “purely political case".
Opposition Leader Bernard Grech and Nationalist MP Adrian Delia filed the case on Tuesday, requesting the court to order the State Advocate to take action against “present and past government officials involved in the [hospitals privatisation] deal”.
They followed up that request by calling upon the court to handle the case with urgency since the subject matter was of national interest.
After considering the Opposition’s request and the State Advocate’s objections, the Court concluded that it did not sense the need for urgency as claimed by the applicants.
Their request was not made within the context of constitutional proceedings.
In this case, upholding the applicants’ request would signify that the Court would have to shorten time limits that are usually applicable in such cases, and schedule the case for hearing irrespective of whatever other cases are scheduled on its list, including those adjourned for judgment.
A party calling for urgency must put forward grave reasons why the case deserves precedence.
The Court did not doubt that this case generated national interest, but the applicants failed to explain why it merited urgent handling.
After all, it was for them to show that if the case is afforded hearing in line with normal procedure - which, after all, provides for expediency in respect of all cases - they or the country would suffer irremediable consequences, observed Mr Justice Grixti.
There was also a “serious distinction” between the applicants’ claims.
They first requested the court to declare that the State Advocate had the power to sue for recovery of the defrauded funds and then asked the court to order the State Advocate to take action.
That second request went far beyond the merits concerning the powers and duties of the State Advocate.
While not envisaging the need for urgency as claimed by the applicants, the court nonetheless felt that this case deserved priority and thus ordered that it be added to the list of cases scheduled for a hearing in the near future.
That hearing is scheduled for January 8.