Joseph Muscat pleaded not guilty to bribery, corruption and other crimes on Tuesday, as he entered court to the cheers and adulation of hundreds of supporters. 

It was the first time in Maltese history that a former politician was charged with such crimes. If found guilty, he faces up to 18 years in prison. 

The charges stem from a 2015 agreement with Vitals, a company with no healthcare experience, to redevelop three public hospitals. It led to accusations of massive financial mismanagement and corruption. 

The former prime minister was one of 14 individuals and nine companies charged during Tuesday's historic court hearing.

Among them were his former chief of staff Keith Schembri and former minister Konrad Mizzi. 

The court session began at 11.30am and lasted more than eight hours, as the magistrate had to manage scores of lawyers following the attorney general’s decision to press charges against the defendants collectively. 

It was an even longer day for some of the hundreds who answered Labour firebrand Manuel Cuschieri’s call to show up in Valletta to lend Muscat their support.

Many arrived early and hung around throughout the day, even after Cuschieri made a silent exit.

They chanted, clapped and cheered as Muscat, Schembri and Mizzi entered court.

Some insulted journalists tasked with reporting the event. 

Inside the court, there was a flurry of legal arguments and procedural challenges. 

The defence lawyers demanded that the attorney general substantiate the requested amounts for freezing orders with concrete evidence.

Magistrate Rachel Montebello approved freezing order requests to the tune of millions against the various people facing charges, to defence lawyers’ protests.

Seven hours into the sitting, Francesco Refalo from the AG’s office said the prosecution was asking the court to impose some bail conditions even though the accused were not charged under arrest.

“And we’re asking this, especially after seeing certain public comments and statements and spin after these charges were filed.

"We want to avoid that this case is reduced to a trial by media. We want to protect proper administration of justice and so while this case is ongoing, we want the accused to refrain from further public comments.

“Those comments are more appropriate to some TV series... And they may undermine the proper administration of justice.”

He was asked to specify who was attacking the prosecution.

Refalo pointed to comments by Muscat, Mizzi and Vitals auditor Chris Spiteri on social media as well as press conferences.

Defence lawyers protest against AG request

The request by the AG’s office to impose restrictions on the accused drew strong reactions from defence lawyers who said it was an unfair request.

They assured the court that their clients had no intention of absconding.

The magistrate prohibited the parties and their lawyer from handing any parts of these records to third parties.

Only faithful reporting of court proceedings is to be allowed.

“The case is tried in court and court alone, not through the media. So, the parties and their lawyers are banned from handing any of the data to third parties or making any public comments about any testimonies or evidence in the proceedings,” the magistrate said.

As for travel restrictions, the court did not prohibit the accused from travelling abroad but they must make sure to appear for every sitting so as not to stultify the proceedings.

The court also reserved the right to set out further conditions at the next sitting or in the interim.

To make sure they abide by this obligation the court imposed a personal guarantee of €25,000 on each of the accused.

During the hearing, defence lawyer Edward Gatt questioned the involvement of a UK expert, referred to as “Sam” in the investigation. Gatt aimed to challenge the expert’s credibility and the procedures followed during the inquiry.

All defence lawyers in fact registered their objection to all the the experts nominated in the magisterial inquiry.  

The magistrate overseeing the case emphasised the relevance of the questions posed by Gatt and other defence attorneys, particularly regarding the validity of searches conducted at various locations, including Muscat’s residence.

Testimonies confirmed that a search at Muscat’s home in 2021 was postponed due to a media leak, raising questions about the handling of information during the investigation.

Former inspector Anthony Scerri, who participated in the Muscat home search, testified about the process and the involvement of foreign experts. Scerri confirmed that documents and devices were seized during multiple searches at locations connected to the accused, including the offices of Vitals auditor Chris Spiteri.

But the details that emerged from the courtroom showed the police did not carry out a parallel investigation to the inquiry. They acted under magistrate’s instructions.

Speaking last night, Opposition leader Bernard Grech said it was confirmed during the court sitting that the police did not actively investigate the hospitals' case.

This, he said was shameful.

He said he was warning Police Commissioner Angelo Gafà that he should not continue to serve those who had put him in his post and “controlling him”.

Grech labelled Muscat and his associates as “political pirates” and criticised Robert Abela for defending them.

Outside the courtroom, the atmosphere was charged with emotion. Dozens of Muscat’s supporters gathered, expressing their conviction that the charges were politically motivated attempts to undermine the Labour Party’s grip on government.

They chanted slogans in support of Muscat, with some holding placards stating, “I am Joseph Muscat”, reflecting their unwavering loyalty to the former prime minister.

When Muscat and other defendants finally emerged from court at 8.50pm, a good number were still there, determined to show their support to the very end.

“This is a repetition of Christ’s story,” one man said, drawing parallels between Muscat’s prosecution and the persecution of Jesus Christ. The case is expected to be lengthy and complex, with significant implications for all parties involved.

The case was adjourned to June 13 and 19.