Lawyers representing Finance Minister Edward Scicluna on Monday objected to the production of court documents linked to a magistrate's decision for the holding of an inquiry into the VGH hospitals deal, arguing that the information was confidential.
The request for the documents was made by lawyers representing former Opposition leader Simon Busuttil.
The issue cropped up in the course of libel proceedings instituted by the minister against Busuttil, over a comment tweeted the day after the magisterial decision upholding a request by NGO Repubblika for an inquiry into the controversial transfer of the public hospitals to Vitals Global Healthcare (VGH).
The inquiry was to establish if there was criminal complicity by Scicluna together with former ministers Konrad Mizzi and Chris Cardona, in the transfer of the St Luke's, Karin Grech and Gozo hospitals.
Repubblika had requested the inquiry to establish if the three ministers, as well as Technoline managing director Ivan Vassallo, gave the group of investors behind VGH an unfair advantage in the contract’s selection process.
The company, which had no previous experience in the sector, had its shares bought out by US healthcare giant Steward less than two years later.
A first request by the civil society group, upheld by Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit, had been overturned on appeal by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti, in respect of the three ministers.
Subsequently, Repubblika filed a second request, by means of a 150-page long application, which was upheld by Magistrate Doreen Clarke and confirmed on appeal by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, thus paving the path for the magisterial probe.
“From the moment that decree was delivered, we could not afford to have a finance minister involved in such a matter. I’m not talking about the judicial arena but the political arena. The two are different,” Busuttil explained, standing firm by his tweet when testifying during the libel proceedings last January.
Scicluna had rebutted that Busuttil’s comment had been intended to tarnish his reputation “at a “delicate” phase when he was in the running to being nominated EU Commissioner.
When facing cross examination in the libel suit, Scicluna was asked by Peter Fenech, Busuttil’s lawyer, to produce documents linked to the magistrate’s decision, confirmed on appeal in November 2019.
His lawyer, Ivan Sammut, objected, arguing that such court records were “confidential” and besides, the requested documents were not relevant to the defamation suit at hand, since they post-dated the tweet that had sparked the libel.
Busuttil’s lawyer replied that the minister was using the law to “shield himself” and that by so doing he was depriving Busuttil from an effective defence.
After hearing submissions by both parties the court, presided over by magistrate Rachel Montebello, observed that since the minister had not touched upon the requested documents in his affidavit, Busuttil could not make the request during cross-examination.
However there was nothing precluding him from bringing that evidence directly, as long as it was deemed by the court “admissible and relevant to the merits of the case.”
When turning down the ministers’ appeal, Madam Justice Grima had observed that the ministers had “an active role” in the negotiations and had authorised the funding of the VGH deal out of the public coffers.
The purpose of the magisterial inquiry was to find out if all those involved in the negotiations could have infringed the law, the appeal court had concluded.
That decision effectively meant that the magistrate, conducting the inquiry against Ivan Vassallo, was to gather evidence also in respect of the three ministers.
Meanwhile, when appearing at last Friday’s hearing at the public inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, former minister Cardona confirmed that he was facing a magisterial inquiry over the VGH deal, but had not yet been summoned to testify.
The libel suit continues in January.