Muscat's lawyers: Vitals 'experts' repeatedly undermined their own credibility
Legal team of former prime minister insist they have no interest in delaying case
'Right of reply' from the legal team representing former prime minister Joseph Muscat on the Vitals court case:
We refer to your article entitled 'How big corruption cases stalled in court in 2025', published on December 29, which contains a number of assertions concerning the defence team representing Dr Joseph Muscat in the so-called Vitals proceedings.
The claim that the defence has pursued a “relentless campaign” to undermine financial experts is a distortion of the judicial process.
The individuals described as “experts” have repeatedly undermined their own credibility through their own conduct: misrepresenting qualifications, disowning responsibility for their analyses by shifting blame between one another, failing to make themselves available to testify, and, in some cases, refusing outright to answer legitimate and elementary questions regarding their work.
Subjecting purported expert evidence to rigorous scrutiny is an obligation imposed by law and an essential safeguard against miscarriages of justice.
As for Mr Harbinson’s refusal to testify due to alleged “fears for his life”, Mr Harbinson advanced a series of shifting excuses for his non-appearance, including references to his wife’s health.
He then refused requests to testify remotely and went further still by declining to give evidence before a British court. The court itself has expressly described the reasons cited by Mr Harbinson as “unfounded”.
The statement that a “coterie of high-profile defence lawyers” will “ensure that the cases remain bogged down in court for years to come” is a deeply offensive assertion on the integrity and professionalism of legal practitioners discharging their duties in accordance with the law.
The defence has every interest, in seeing these proceedings concluded as swiftly as fairness allows. The defence has not delayed proceedings. It is very much in the interests of justice, and particularly in the interests of Dr Muscat and his family, that the proceedings are dealt with expeditiously. Protracted litigation serves neither justice nor our client, whose legal position and reputation have already suffered extensive and ongoing damage.
Serious procedural and evidential deficiencies have emerged in the proceedings. These are matters of court record and which are increasingly central to the case.
Dr Vince Galea, Dr Luke Dalli, Dr Charlon Gouder, Dr Ishmael Psaila and Dr Etienne Borg Ferranti