A judge presiding over the constitutional case linked to the Panama Appeals saga on Tuesday handed a partial victory to former Opposition leader Simon Busuttil by upholding arguments that several documents, deemed as ‘beyond essential’ are to be admitted as evidence.

The issue constituted the crux of a decision delivered by Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon in the constitutional case filed by Dr  Busuttil, claiming that Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi’s decision to continue to preside over the Panama appeals would render him a “victim” by violating his right to a fair hearing.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, his chief of staff Keith Schembri and Tourism Minister Konrad Mizzi, together with businessmen Brian Tonna, Karl Cini, Malcolm Scerri and Adrian Hillman, had each filed separate appeals from a magisterial decision giving the go ahead for an inquiry in their regard.

The appeals were assigned to Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi, prompting a challenge by the former leader of the Opposition on the grounds that the judge’s wife, Labour MEP Marlene Mizzi, had expressed her views on the Panama Papers scandal.

Following the judge’s refusal to accept the challenge, Dr Busuttil had filed a separate constitutional case claiming a violation of his right to a fair hearing and requesting that the appeals be assigned to a different member of the judiciary.

Some of the respondents’ lawyers had objected to various documents produced in evidence in this constitutional suit, including a transcript in which Mr Justice Mizzi “had declared several times in open court that an argument for his recusal was ‘highly annoying’”.

Other documents targeted for removal were two decrees delivered by inquiry magistrate Aaron Bugeja, as well as media coverage of speeches delivered by Mrs Mizzi in the European Parliament wherein she had expressed her views on the Panama Papers scandal.

On Tuesday, however, Mr Justice Zammit McKeon threw out the arguments of the respondents declaring that all these documents were admissible as evidence.

As for the media coverage of MEP Mizzi’s speeches, it was now up to Dr Busuttil to ‘bring forward the best evidence’ to prove that what was said could give rise to a breach of his right to a fair hearing, the court declared.

“There is nothing stopping the applicant from summoning MEP Marlene Mizzi as a witness to confirm or deny what she was reported to have said in the papers and on social media,” Mr Justice Zammit McKeon continued.

The case continues next month.

Lawyer Jason Azzopardi is counsel to the applicant.