A police officer unequivocally confirmed that the police never investigated the Vitals case but only assisted the magistrate conducting the inquiry, relying on its conclusions when pressing charges against a former prime minister and his associates. 

The 78 boxes of evidence making up the inquiry were never in police possession and police only assisted in transferring those boxes from the Attorney General’s office to court. 

That point was driven home by lawyers assisting Joseph Muscat, his former chief of staff Keith Schembri, former minister Konrad Mizzi and a number of other persons and entities charged with money laundering and corruption in their alleged involvement in the now-annulled hospitals privatisation deal. 

The case resumed on Thursday in much calmer settings than the previous first hearing, when rowdy cheering crowds gathered outside the Valletta law courts to support Muscat. 

The case involves a deal, originally struck in 2015, in which the management of three of the country’s hospitals was handed over to Vitals, a private company, with no experience in healthcare. The concessionaire changed to Stewart Healthcare in 2018.

At the very start of Thursday's hearing, presiding Magistrate Rachel Montebello mapped the way forward, making it clear the sitting would not extend beyond 3pm, thus directing the parties to make good use of the allocated time, avoiding useless and repetitive questions. 

It was one of the prosecuting officers who stole the limelight when he was called to the witness stand after the court upheld the defence’s request to produce him as their witness to shed light on how criminal charges had been issued. 

This information was important for the defence to decide whether to contest the evidence produced so far by the prosecution on a prima facie level.

The defence argued that the law granted this right to the defence at this early stage of the proceedings before the court decreed whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence for those charged to stand trial on indictment. 

Failure to allow such witnesses would result in defective proceedings.

The magistrate upheld that argument and inspector Wayne Rodney Borg, one of the prosecutors, took the stand.

Police had 'no visibility' on inquiry

Defence lawyers fired a series of questions in rapid succession, all basically focusing on the police work done in relation to the Vitals case. 

Over and over, the inspector explained that that work was limited to assisting the inquiring magistrate by serving notices of summons to those called before her. Other officers were involved in searches ordered by the magistrate. 

But police “absolutely had no visibility on the inquiry” and did not carry out any parallel investigation. 

Grilled about his involvement in pressing charges, Borg insisted he had only signed the charges as prosecutor but not as investigator. 

The decision not to investigate was taken “collectively” with his superiors.

Asked to identify his “superiors” the inspector named superintendent Hubert Cini, Assistant Commissioner Fabian Fleri and Commissioner Angelo Gafa’. 

Police “relied on the conclusions of the inquiry,” said Borg, explaining how he had read the proces verbal and most of its appendices. 

They also consulted the Attorney General herself who was present at a meeting attended by the inspector and three lawyers from her office, currently handling the prosecution. 

“So you simply parroted what you read in the conclusions,” said defence lawyer Giannella de Marco, suggesting that the police had acted as “parrots” and “postmen”.

Questioned about whether police had sent for any of the suspects to get their version before pressing charges, the witness invariably gave the same reply. 

“The police did not investigate… We relied on the inquiry,” said the inspector, who admitted this was the first inquiry he was dealing with.  

The inspector said he was aware that the inquiring magistrate had sent for Joseph Muscat to give his version. But was not aware that the former prime minister had not done so because of “constitutional proceedings he had instituted.” 

Muscat’s lawyer, Vincent Galea, asked about a letter sent to the police commissioner by Muscat who wished to give his version. 

The inspector knew about that letter. But, again, Muscat was not sent for because police had decided to rely on the magisterial conclusions. 

Lawyer Jason Grima, assisting auditor Christopher Spiteri, said he wished to summon Borg’s predecessor in the case, former police inspector Anthony Scerri, to ask further questions about how police issued charges for an alleged €20 million fraud. 

That request was upheld and the court ordered that Scerri was to testify in the next sittings. 

Lawyer Franco Debono, assisting Sciacca Grill Ltd, together with lawyer David Bonello, made one last argument. 

Since money laundering laws allow suspects to produce a “reasonable excuse” and given that in this case, police had not taken the suspects’ version before pressing charges, their action could result in a potential breach of fundamental human rights. 

The defence reserved its right to act accordingly at the opportune stage, Debono said. 

The case continues next week.