Repubblika president Robert Aquilina confirmed on oath on Tuesday that he had certified documents related to the Pilatus Bank magisterial inquiry as true copies after checking the original.

However, he stood firm by his sources saying they were "privileged" and revealing them would be unprofessional and placing them “at risk of violence”.

Aquilina took that firm approach when testifying in criminal proceedings whereby the group is challenging the police commissioner to take criminal action against several former top officials of the now-shuttered bank. 

Repubblika had long been insisting that Police Commissioner Angelo Gafà had failed to take action against those officials in spite of having evidence in hand of suspected money laundering and other financial crimes. 

A magisterial inquiry into suspected financial wrongdoing at Pilatus Bank had recommended criminal action against a number of its top officials but so far criminal charges were only issued against the bank and its money laundering reporting officer, Claude-Ann Sant Fournier. 

Subsequently, the Attorney General issued a nolle prosequi – instruction not to prosecute - in respect of the bank’s former risk manager Antoniella Gauci and operations supervisor Mehmet Tasli, running counter to the inquiring magistrate’s recommendations. 

This led Repubblika to set up a challenge against the police commissioner. 

The proceedings evolved into a long-drawn-out court saga after the NGO filed a separate constitutional case claiming that its fundamental rights would be breached if the challenge were to be heard by Magistrate Nadine Lia who presides over such challenge proceedings. 

Repubblika claimed that the magistrate had a conflict of interest since her father-in-law was the lawyer of former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and his chief of staff Keith Schembri. 

He was the lawyer tasked with drafting the terms of reference for the Egrant inquiry wherein Pilatus Bank featured prominently. 

However, Repubblika’s claims were turned down by the First Hall, Civil Court and that decision was confirmed by the Constitutional Court on appeal in May, thus paving the path for Magistrate Lia to resume with the challenge hearings. 

Thick spiral-bound document presented

When the case was called on Tuesday, Aquilina took the witness stand to continue his testimony where he had left off before the constitutional detour. 

He presented a thick spiral-bound document which contained the final report presented by UK firm Duff and Phelps who were tasked by inquiring Magistrate Ian Farrugia to preserve all evidence seized from Pilatus Bank. 

Their report, dated June 30, 2020, was presented in the acts of the inquiry so it was confidential. 

That issue was immediately questioned by Lia who asked whether the document presented in evidence was a formal copy.

“As a notary public I am authorised to certify a true copy,” explained Aquilina. 

“But because you took it from the inquiry?”

“If I answer that question I could be disclosing my sources,” said the witness, explaining further that he had not made any formal request to the court concerned or the Attorney General to get a copy. 

“So someone, male or female, singular or plural, gave it to you,” pressed on the magistrate. 

“Yes,” came the reply. 

Copy matched with printout of original

As the line of questioning continued, Aquilina confirmed that he had matched that copy with a printout of the original. 

“So did you see the original or not?”

“Yes, I did… I can confirm that it is a true copy because I saw the original.” 

Asked how certain he could be that that report was the final version and that there had been no additions, Aquilina replied: “I’m 100% sure and there’s my [notarial] warrant to vouch for that.” 

Besides that Duff and Phelps report he had also seen extensive extracts from the proces verbal. 

“Do those initials on the pages belong to the [inquiring] magistrate," continued the court. 

“I cannot identify the initials of the magistrate,” said Aquilina, confirming that he had seen the original version when the Pilatus inquiry had been concluded. 

“Who gave you permission to see that inquiry,” pressed on the magistrate, pointing out that what the witness had just said could cast a shadow upon the only three players who were legally entitled to have access to the acts of an inquiry.

Those were the inquiring magistrate, the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner, only if authorised by the AG. 

“The only shadow falls upon the AG and the Police Commissioner for failing to act upon the instructions of the inquiring magistrate,” replied Aquilina. 

As for himself, besides being a notary by profession he was also nowadays a writer and writers’ sources were privileged. 

“This is a super-loaded document… You do understand,” persisted the court. 

But Aquilina stood firm by his position.

Police internal correspondence presented

He then presented internal correspondence between a number of police officers formerly involved in the nolle prosequi issue concerning Gauci and Tasli. 

Aquilina had prepared handwritten copies of those three internal emails, confirming once again that they were true copies of the originals but again insisting that he could not reveal his sources. 

To do so would not only be unprofessional on his part but he could also possibly put those sources “at risk of violence against them”.

He insisted that those emails proved that the police commissioner had a copy of the Duff and Phelps report on the strength of which he ought to have taken criminal action. 

Back in January 2022, Repubblika filed a criminal report, bringing such matters to the attention of Gafà. 

But still the police corps did nothing.

“Did you have any other communication with the Commissioner since? Were there any follow-up emails or calls or requests for meetings,” asked Lia. 

“We put up a lot of public pressure… lots of public appeals which we brought to the notice of the police commissioner.” 

But in a recent email he had received from Gafà, the police commissioner had allegedly stated that he was prejudiced in Aquilina’s regard. 

“He wouldn’t communicate,” said Aquilina.

“But did you try,” insisted the Magistrate.

“No,” the witness replied. 

Who will represent the police commissioner?

At the start of the hearing, the court minuted that it was not acceptable that “for the second time” it was not informed about who was to represent the Police Commissioner in this challenge.

The magistrate had sent out communication several times but still had received no reply. 

Unless it received that information by means of a note within five days, indicating who was representing the commissioner, the court “will be constrained to take the necessary measures to ensure that these proceedings may continue”.

On Tuesday, an inspector who happened to be in the courtroom, stepped in amicus curiae so that Aquilina could give his testimony. 

An amicus curiae is someone who is not a party to a legal case, but who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues of a case.

The case continues in February. 

Lawyer Jason Azzopardi assisted Repubblika.