A magistrates’ court has turned down a request by former prime minister Joseph Muscat and his wife to intervene in criminal proceedings against former police inspector Jonathan Ferris.

The Muscats failed to justify their request by demonstrating how Ferris’ testimony could harm them, a magistrate ruled. 

Ferris, a former police officer and FIAU manager, faces perjury charges related to discrepancies in testimony he gave to a magistrate investigating claims linking Muscat to secret offshore company Egrant.

That inquiry, conducted by now-judge Aaron Bugeja, was concluded in July 2018. Among its recommendations were those to investigate Ferris, former Pilatus Bank employee Maria Efimova and Nexia BT’s Karl Cini for perjury. 

Ferris had claimed in his testimony that he had identified a $600,000 transaction from the daughter of Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Alijev to Buttardi, a company owned by a close friend of Michelle Muscat, the former prime minister’s wife. 

Ferris also claimed that the payment was masked as a loan. 

But the inquiry failed to find any trace of the alleged payment, despite Ferris being questioned by the police to try and get to the root of that claim. 

Joseph and Michelle Muscat had sought to be admitted into the case against Ferris as parte civile participants.

Former police inspector Jonathan Ferris. Photo: Mark Zammit Cordina

The initial magistrate who was first assigned the case, Joe Mifsud, had accepted that request. 

But Mifsud had subsequently recused himself over a possible conflict of interest, nullifying the courtroom rights acquired by the Muscat couple and requiring them to reapply with the new magistrate assigned to the case. 

On Wednesday, a court rebuffed that request. 

In her decree, Magistrate Marse-Ann Farrugia said that the Muscats never explained to the court how Ferris’ testimony – “even if only for argument’s sake it was false, could have in some way implicated them or could have done them any harm.”

Their lawyer had argued that the Muscats clearly had an interest in intervening in any proceedings concerning the inquiry so as to give their contribution if possible.

And if there was anything concerning them, they would also be in a position to rebut this too, the lawyer had argued. 

Such words indicated that the couple were not even sure that the merits of Ferris’ case included issues concerning them, and therefore, less so were they certain of issues that could cause them harm, observed the magistrate. 

Since the Muscats did not prove that Ferris’ testimony at the Egrant inquiry somehow breached their lawful interests, then they cannot be deemed as “injured parties” in these criminal proceedings. 

Inspector Wayne Borg prosecuted. Lawyer Jason Azzopardi represented Ferris. Lawyer Pawlu Lia appeared for the Muscats.