Former Nexia BT partner Karl Cini has filed constitutional proceedings claiming that a ruling by the Speaker forcing him to testify before the Public Accounts committee was in breach of his fundamental human rights to a fair hearing.
He also claimed that the guidelines provided to witnesses summoned by a parliamentary committee are also in breach of his right to protection from arbitrary detention since a breach could result in imprisonment.
The proceedings have forced the committee to stall its questioning of Cini.
Cini filed the case in the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction following two rulings by Speaker of the House, Anġlu Farrugia, that although witnesses had the right to silence and not reply to questions that might incriminate them, this right was not a blanket and unconditional one.
He held that witnesses appearing before the PAC cannot invoke their right to silence at a whim but only if questions are incriminating.
The rulings were delivered at the request of Public Accounts Committee chairman Darren Carabott after Cini twice refused to answer any of the questions put to him by the committee members earlier this month.
The Speaker ruled that Cini could invoke the right to silence on questions relating to matters subject to ongoing judicial proceedings but could not do so in a blanket manner. The ruling also ordered Cini to provide documentary evidence showing that the matter was subject to court proceedings.
Cini was also found guilty of prima facie breach of privilege but was given the last chance to come in line.
Last Friday, the PAC adjourned its sitting after being informed of the constitutional case filed by Cini against the Speaker as well as PAC chairman.
Cini explained to the court that he had been summoned to testify before the PAC about the Auditor General’s investigation into the Electrogas contract for the construction and operation of a power station and an LNG terminal. Nexia BT had been involved in the adjudication of bids for the public contract.
His lawyers, Stephen Tonna Lowell and Norval Desira argued that since their client is the subject of criminal proceedings related to money laundering, and that evidence was still being exhibited in court, there was a possibility that the magisterial inquiry where he was a suspect could be exhibited by the prosecution.
They argued that Cini was potentially facing up to six months in prison for contempt of the House of Representatives if he failed to testify. Additionally, if found guilty of contempt, Cini’s bail in the money laundering proceedings could also be revoked, on the grounds of violating the condition that he does not commit another offence of a voluntary nature while on bail.
The lawyers said that the Speaker and the PAC were “no strangers” to breaches of the fundamental right to a fair trial as they pointed out that in previous similar cases, the PAC had chosen to await the outcome of constitutional and European challenges. However, in this case, these pending cases were ignored.
Cini, therefore, requested the court to rule that the Speaker’s ruling as well as the Guide for Witnesses appearing before the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Representatives breached his right to a fair hearing and that the guide breached his right to protection from arbitrary detention simply for invoking his right to silence.