A lawyer assisting a number of people facing charges in the social benefits fraud racket wants to summon the Prime Minister to explain the implications of the recently announced presidential pardon.

The pardon, he told court, was likely to impact “hundreds of cases”. 

The government's announcement about the pardon appears to have cast prosecutors and lawyers alike in a state of uncertainty, not knowing the extent of the pardon on those facing charges in court for allegedly defrauding the state coffers. 

A number of people turned up in court on Thursday morning for a first hearing over their alleged involvement as beneficiaries in the racket. 

But before the hearing got underway, defence lawyer Jason Azzopardi informed presiding Magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo that he had something to say. 

Eight days ago, the lawyer got to know through a newspaper report that was subsequently confirmed by Robert Abela, that the Head of State had signed a presidential pardon exonerating those beneficiaries who were reimbursing the Social Security Department the amounts defrauded.

However, since then, the pardon has not been published and thus, not knowing the details thereof, he could not advise his clients on the way forward, explained Azzopardi, while the court deputy minuted his explanation. 

“I must emphasise that the prosecuting officers are also in the dark because they too have not been informed of the details of such presidential pardon affecting hundreds of cases,” went on the lawyer. 

In light of such lack of information, the lawyer requested the court to adjourn the cases so that the Prime Minister might be summoned immediately to explain to the court what the pardon says.

Thursday’s was the first hearing since news of the pardon emerged. 

“Seven days later, we’re still in the dark,” said Azzopardi.

Cases ajourned 

Lawyer Anita Giordmaina, representing the Social Security Department, informed the court that there would be no objection to such request for adjournment. 

The court upheld the request and adjourned each of the cases in turn, minuting that this was being done so that each of the accused could clarify his or her position. 

“For the sake of the best administration of justice, the court conceded such adjournment so that hopefully the court too would be informed as to what was to be done with these cases.” 

Other lawyers, assisting a number of people facing similar charges, followed suit. 

'Alleged fraudsters can petition president'

Lawyer Jose’ Herrera observed that according to an official press release by the Prime Minister, President Myriam Spiteri Debono was advised to exercise her prerogative and issue a pardon in favour of those who had defrauded the Social Security Department. 

That statement appeared to imply that people charged or investigated in relation to the fraudulent racket, had the faculty of applying for such a pardon. 

Unless they petitioned the President, such pardon did not apply, said Herrera, noting further that the main reason behind such pardon was to ensure that benefits unduly paid out by the department, would be reimbursed. 

His client had, in fact, filed a petition to the President of the Republic four days ago. 

In his case, the client had already settled the full amount due to the department. 

Lawyers Lennox Vella and Noel Bianco, assisting other fraudulent beneficiaries, likewise asked for an adjournment in light of current uncertainties triggered by the announcement of such pardon. 

While remarking that the court would not summon the Prime Minister, the Magistrate suggested the pardon could be published to clarify matters.