A court has revoked permission for former prime minister Joseph Muscat and his wife, Michelle, to participate in a perjury case against former FIAU manager Jonathan Ferris.
The couple were previously granted 'parte civile' status, which allows a lawyer to represent them in court as an injured party in the case.
However that status was revoked on Monday by Magistrate Marseann Farrugia who ruled that the permission could not have been granted by a magistrate who then proceeded to abstain from hearing the case.
The original decision was taken by fellow magistrate Joe Mifsud on November 11, minutes before he abstained from hearing the case due to a possible conflict of interest.
Magistrate Mifsud recused himself because he is also presiding over a stalled case in which whistleblower Maria Efimova stands charged with making false accusations against Ferris and other police officers.
However, right before he informed the court that he was abstaining, Magistrate Mifsud accepted a request by lawyer Pawlu Lia who asked to be admitted as a parte civile in the case on behalf of the Muscats.
Why was the status revoked?
Overruling the decision, Magistrate Farrugia said that according to the legal provisions governing the recusal of a judge or magistrate, this decision can only be taken after the charges are read and before taking a decision on other matters.
“If a magistrate believes that there are enough grounds for his recusal, this decision must be taken immediately and before taking cognisance of any other request," she ruled.
"With all due respect to the magistrate concerned, the procedure he chose to adopt ran counter [to the legal provisions]. Once the magistrate felt he needed to abstain, he could not decide on other acts of the case and, therefore, could not decide on the request filed by the Muscats."
She read out her ruling during the first hearing of the case against Ferris, a former police inspector and ex-manager at the Financial Intelligence and Analysis Unit who is accused of perjury over claims he made during the Egrant inquiry.
What is the case about?
Ferris had claimed that he identified a $600,000 transaction from Leyla Aliyeva, daughter of Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Alijev, to the New York-based fashion company Buttardi, a company owned by Michelle Buttigieg, a close friend of Michelle Muscat. Ferris had claimed the payment was masked as a loan.
Testifying on Monday, prosecuting officers Wayne Rodney Borg and George Frendo, both stationed at the police Economic Crimes Unit, said that they had checked the FIAU working files and found no evidence of the transaction and proceeded to charge Ferris with perjury.
They said they had inherited the investigation from Superintendent Yvonne Farrugia and former inspector Matthew Vella, who will both testify in the case.
The main evidence against Ferris was the Egrant inquiry itself.
The inquiry was triggered by Muscat after journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia reported a claim by Efimova, a former employee of Pilatus Bank, that the secret company Egrant belonged to Michelle Muscat.
The court found no evidence linking the Muscats to the Panama company, which was acquired by Nexia BT a few months after the March 2013 election along with two other offshore companies whose ownership was later transferred to former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri and former minister Konrad Mizzi.
In his conclusions, magistrate Aaron Bugeja, who has since been promoted to judge, had requested a perjury investigation against Efimova and Ferris as well as a probe into who had falsified documents linking Egrant to Michelle Muscat.
The case continues in March.
Lawyers Kris Busietta and Jason Azzopardi appeared for Ferris.
The case against Efimova was not heard since Efimova could not be traced to be notified about the charges. There is a pending European arrest warrant over the case.