The case against former health minister Chris Fearne, Central Bank governor Edward Scicluna and 12 others in connection with the fraudulent Vitals hospitals concession continued on Thursday. 

The morning’s sitting was largely taken up by the last of the prosecution witnesses testifying about their involvement in the magisterial inquiry into the case as well as continued pushback from the defence on the freezing orders issued against the accused. 

Inspector Wayne Borg testified about his involvement in the inquiry, including his presence during a number of searches and his role in notifying witnesses who were requested to testify during the inquiry. 

At one point, he was confronted by lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell, who asked why there was a discrepancy in the acts of the inquiry, which indicated his clients as accomplices in the proceedings, while the charges filed against them indicated them as primary instigators. 

He replied that such decisions were made by the Attorney General.

Asked why the police had not acted on a report by the National Audit Office which also indicated shortcomings and cast suspicion on the hospitals concession, Borg replied that he did not know. 

Lawyer Stefano Filletti requested a constitutional reference on the freezing order.  

The lawyers argued that the limited time window allowed them to file an appeal to the assets freeze as well as the inequality of arms at the disposal of the defence in terms of evidence was potentially breaching their clients’ constitutional rights. 

Prosecutor Francesco Refalo objected to the request, saying that the defence had not indicated which of the defendants’ human rights were likely to be breached by the freezing orders. He also cited case law that held that the court should hold back from making a constitutional reference when one had already been raised before the court of constitutional jurisdiction. 

Filletti countered that the provisions regulating freezing orders were most likely to breach his client’s right to a fair hearing. Furthermore, the attachment order could be extended twice for six-month periods. 

The court is expected to rule on this matter during the next sitting. 

Filletti requested details about the list of experts appointed by the court and any changes made to it, however, the prosecution objected, saying it could not understand how this was relevant.

Filletti officially requested the court to require the registrar to confirm whether the experts appointed in the magisterial inquiry are, in fact, on that list, with the prosecution rebutting that the magistrate was free to appoint experts according to its needs and was not bound by a list. 

Former prime minister Joseph Muscat and his two former associates, Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi, are also facing parallel charges in connection with the concession, having earlier denied charges of money laundering, bribery and criminal association, among other serious crimes. 

In a sitting on Wednesday, Muscat and the other co-accused went to court to challenge the €30 million asset freeze, arguing that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the freezing of such an amount was merited. 

The former prime minister's lawyers argued that the freezing order with respect to Muscat must be limited to the €60,000 mentioned in the process verbal of the magisterial inquiry. 

Lawyers for Schembri and Mizzi also asked for a constitutional reference in the case challenging the freezing orders. Their request was upheld.