Repubblika has claimed that some of its members could be jailed if magistrate Nadine Lia is allowed to continue hearing a case it filed concerning Pilatus Bank.

Robert Aquilina, president of the civil society organisation, made that claim when testifying on Friday at the first hearing of a case stemming from criminal proceedings in which Repubblika is challenging the police commissioner to prosecute various individuals linked to the now-defunct bank. 

The organisation is arguing that magistrate Lia has a clear conflict of interest since her father-in-law happens to be the lawyer who assisted former prime minister Joseph Muscat and his wife as well as former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri. 

Those people, it is insisting, had an interest in the 2017 Egrant inquiry whose terms of reference were laid down by Pawlu Lia, the magistrate’s relative, and where Pilatus Bank featured prominently. 

Yet multiple requests for the magistrate to abstain have been turned down, prompting Repubblika to seek a remedy before the constitutional courts, claiming that such refusal breached its right to a fair hearing. 

The next hearing of the challenge proceedings is scheduled for October 27.

Repubblika is arguing that if that hearing goes ahead they stand to suffer “irremediable prejudice since the magistrate is riding roughshod over their rights”.

This was clear in the way the magistrate handled the last sitting which was appointed “urgently,” said Aquilina. 

Repubblika had been informed of the sitting two days in advance after first learning - through media reports - that Magistrate Lia had received an anonymous letter in relation to the NGO's case.

“The sitting was over in less than a minute,” said Aquilina, recounting how the magistrate had simply announced receipt of that letter, adjourned the case to October 27 and then suspended the sitting “for five minutes”.

“We wished to condemn that letter and ask for the magistrate’s recusal in open court, but she spoke softly, said that the sitting was suspended and then walked out."

Their lawyer, Jason Azzopardi, had twice flagged their wish to say something, said Aquilina.

Aquilina had remained inside the courtroom and when the magistrate returned, she simply “looked at me and continued with the sitting”, he said, adding that media reports of that session had confirmed Repubblika’s version. 

Worse still, when testifying in a separate case last Friday, Aquilina was faced with two questions by the AG lawyer, who asked whether he was a journalist and also whether he could reveal his source.

On that occasion, the presiding judge accepted the witness’s determined reply that he would not reveal his sources and that the law granted him protection in this regard. 

“But what will Nadine Lia do [if faced with a similar situation],”asked Aquilina. 

Repubblika had no guarantee that the magistrate would adopt the same approach and, in an extreme scenario, could possibly condemn him to detention, he claimed.

“That would spell irremediable harm,” Aquilina concluded. 

On the other hand, the Police Commissioner would suffer no prejudice if the interim measure were to be upheld.

Such an interim measure was like an “emergency” intervention needed to save a patient suffering an appendix attack, said Azzopardi when making submissions.

“Unless given urgent treatment, the patient will suffer septicaemia and anything after that would prove useless.”

Following the last sitting, Magistrate Lia issued a decree to rebut Repubblika’s version of events. That decree was marred by “untruths,” said Azzopardi.

“What if I go to a football match without knowing that the referee is wearing the opponent’s t-shirt under his black top?” the lawyer remarked.

Magistrate Lia had abstained on a number of occasions including Yorgen Fenech’s money laundering case, the inquiry over Melvin Theuma’s phantom job, as well as the Maksars' case, the reason being her relation to a lawyer who “from time to time” assisted politically-associated persons. 

Unless the magistrate abstained this time round and decided the challenge case, Repubblika’s rights would be irremediably prejudiced, wrapped up the lawyer, after citing jurisprudence to support his arguments. 

State lawyer Isaac Zammit rebutted that the magistrate’s decision was subject to appeal and time limits would be brief. 

Moreover, Magistrate Lia did not abstain in challenge proceedings filed mutually by Yorgen Fenech and Melvin Theuma, pointed out the lawyer. 

The court, presided over by Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey, is expected to decree on the interim measure on October 19. 

Lawyer James D’Agostino also represented the State Advocate as a respondent in the case.