A court has upheld a request by Daphne Caruana Galizia’s heirs for a copy of the proces verbal drawn up in the Pilatus Bank inquiry to be presented in evidence in Joseph Muscat’s libel proceedings against them.

That document was the last piece of evidence sought by the assassinated journalist’s husband and sons in their bid to defend themselves against the defamation claims filed by the former Prime Minister over a story published by Caruana Galizia in 2017. 

In that article first published in her Running Commentary blog, the journalist alleged that the secret offshore company Egrant belonged to Muscat’s wife, Michelle. 

That story had prompted Muscat to request a magisterial inquiry to investigate those claims. 

The inquiry, conducted by then-Magistrate Aaron Bugeja, concluded that there was no documentation linking Muscat’s family to the Panama secret company, with the UK-based forensic accounting firm appointed to assist in the inquiry, also failing to find any evidence linking the Muscats to Egrant Inc on the servers of the now-shuttered Pilatus Bank. 

Following Caruana Galizia’s murder in October 2017, Muscat testified in the libel proceedings, stating that he would drop the cases filed against the journalist and her son Matthew, if the heirs accepted the conclusions of the Egrant inquiry. 

The Caruana Galizia family refused to do so, saying that they would not bow to “extortion from our public servants”.

Last year, the journalist’s son testified that they were unable to defend themselves against Muscat’s libel claims since the main witness was dead and her heirs did not have access to her sources. 

“We’d need a miracle or my mother to come back to life to break free of that prejudice,” Matthew Caruana Galizia had said.

The family’s lawyer, Joseph Zammit Maempel, then filed a request for the proces verbal drawn up by Magistrate Ian Farrugia at the Pilatus inquiry to be presented in evidence.

Muscat’s lawyer, Pawlu Lia, had objected, arguing that the request was simply intended to further prolong the proceedings. 

The court, presided over by magistrate Victor George Axiaq, delivered a decree in chambers upholding the defendants’ request and ordering the Registrar of the Civil Courts to be summoned to produce the document. 

Since “evidence may have been gathered” during the Pilatus inquiry which could be relevant to the subject matter of the libel, the proces verbal was to be produced, decreed the magistrate. 

'Whoever divulged Pilatus inquiry information comes across as hero'

On Monday, Muscat’s lawyer questioned that decision and made reference to a recent decision delivered by Mr Justice Toni Abela in the Opposition’s Vitals case wherein the judge reserved strong criticism for the leaking of criminal records.

Such leakage of secret court documents was liable to prosecution, Lia stressed, quoting Judge Abela on the subject. 

Criminal records were only accessible to the public when read out in open court.

“This proces verbal [about Pilatus Bank] has not been read out in any courtroom to date, as far as I’m aware,” argued Lia, drawing a comparison to the Egrant inquiry. 

In that case, the conclusions were made public and those were related to Muscat’s libels against Caruana Galizia. 

“The other proces verbal [about Pilatus Bank] has no relation to this story.” 

Moreover “the person making the allegations had testified three times before the magistrate in the Egrant inquiry, saying all she had to say about this. So the proces verbal should not shed further light on what she said back then,” went on Lia. 

“That’s your view. The court does not agree,” said Magistrate Axiaq. 

“What is the reason for this request? What is the purpose of proof, ”asked Muscat’s lawyer. 

“Be reasonable,” said the magistrate. “After all, this case was filed with urgency. It’s also in the interests of your clients. It could be that evidence emerges from the Pilatus Bank proces verbal.”

Lawyer Joseph Zammit Maempel, assisting the defendants, pointed out that the Pilatus inquiry was to be presented in ongoing civil proceedings filed by NGO Repubblika against the Attorney General.

Madam Justice Doreen Clarke upheld Repubblika’s request to that effect and the inquiry was to be presented at the next sitting in mid-June. 

Meanwhile, the defendants summoned former Repubblika president Robert Aquilina to testify about the Pilatus inquiry. 

“Notary Aquilina is present outside,” Zammit Maempel informed the court. 

But Muscat’s lawyer again cited Judge Abela.

“Legally speaking, he [Aquilina] cannot testify because if he states that he got them [his information] from [the Pilatus inquiry] then that means that he breached the law,” said Lia. 

“Now the person who divulged that information comes across as a hero,” went on the lawyer, promptly rapped by the magistrate who pointed out that such comments were not tolerated. 

“Why is this proces verbal relevant to this case,” reiterated Lia. 

“Because what happened at Pilatus Bank reflects on Egrant,” retorted Zammit Maempel. 

The court deferred the case to July for the registrar to present a copy of the Pilatus report on a USB pen drive. 

Lawyer Peter Caruana Galizia also represented the defendants.