Judge Antonio Mizzi can hear a case involving the Panama Papers, an appeals court said on Monday morning as it upheld an appeal filed by the Attorney General.
The constitutional court found that while Nationalist Party MP Simon Busuttil was justified in highlighting concerns about a right to a fair trial, he had no right to ask for the judge to be recused, as he could not be considered a victim in the case.
Although the ruling came from Malta’s highest court, the matter is unlikely to end here: in comments outside the court, Dr Busuttil and his lawyer, fellow PN MP Jason Azzopardi, said that they would be taking the matter to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
And despite the ruling, Mr Justice Mizzi could end up never hearing the case anyway: the judge is due to retire from the bench on November 16.
Dr Busuttil has battled for Mr Justice Mizzi to be taken off a case concerning the Panama Papers, saying his marriage to Labour MEP Marlene Mizzi casts a shadow over his impartiality in the case.
The case revolves around a request by Dr Busuttil to have an inquiry into Panama Papers revelations. A court found that the request had merit, and ordered an inquiry into the matter. But seven high-profile people - Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, his chief of staff Keith Schembri, minister Konrad Mizzi and businessmen Brian Tonna, Karl Cini, Malcolm Scerri and Adrian Hillman – appealed that ruling.
That appeal was assigned to Mr Justice Mizzi, prompting Dr Busuttil to request the judge’s recusal.
An initial ruling by the constitutional court, which found in the PN MP's favour, was appealed by the Attorney General.
That appeal has now been upheld, with the court finding that while Dr Muscat or any of the other six individuals who appealed the court's decision to order an inquiry could be considered victims in the case, Dr Busuttil - the person who asked the courts to order an inquiry in the first place - was not.
The Constitutional Court, w/o entering at all in the merits of the AG’s appeal, accepted @SimonBusuttil plea that the safeguards of the right to a fair trial are applicable too in his request to open a criminal Inquiry, but said that he cannot invoke those same safeguards. https://t.co/6ZRZkkOxjy
— Jason Azzopardi (@AzzopardiJason) October 29, 2018
The court however upheld Dr Busuttil's plea concerning a right to a fair trial, finding that safeguards to that right were applicable in the case.
Dr Busuttil's lawyer Jason Azzopardi said the judgement was "contradictory" and emphasised his client's willingness to take the matter to Europe's highest court.
"The courts found that the safeguards of a right to a fair trial are indeed applicable in this case, but that these can only be invoked by the suspected persons," he said.
"We will be taking the matter to the ECHR".